and i didn't know that many folks in this body before i got elected. and when i got elected, one of the things i did was try to find out what i could and work with him on a number of issues because i knew he had a reputation for working across the aisle. i knew he was very good friends with mr. boehner who subsequently became speaker of the house. it was in my interest to get to know him if i wanted to get things done for iowa even though speaker pelosi took over when i came. my job has been to work with both sides of the aisle and tom latham is a model for doing exactly that. when i first came, we had a lot of tough issues to deal with here in the u.s. congress. and one of the things that happened very early on when i

first got elected was the issue of the national guard came up and i was on armed services. a lot of those guard folks were being deployed multiple times. and it was very, very difficult for their families. and a number of us recognized that what we needed to do is build facilities, upgrade facilities, get rid of those old facilities and replace them with readiness centers to train and equip our troops in the event that we had to send them overseas on a mission, which we id many, many times. but we needed to construct those facilities also for their families, for their spouses and for their children. on the appropriations committee what tom latham did was make sure we had the funding, to

make sure we built those facilities as well. so we were able to work on that issue together. and then when the great flood of 2008 hit across iowa, but mainly across the eastern half of iowa, it included a lot of tom latham's district and a lot of it included my district, about half of the damage was in my district alone, but i worked with tom and steve king and bruce braley and leonard boswell. we did great job working on a bipartisan basis to make sure that what we needed in iowa we got. and so we worked very hard on that. and then also on veterans issues. when we heard about the scandal in phoenix, the first thing i did was i contacted tom latham and said, hey, we need to go to des moines together if that's ok with you. i know it's your congressional district, it's not mine. but let's go to des moines together and talk to the folks there about the des moines facility. i've been to the v.a. facility in iowa city in my district

many, many times. but i want to go to des moines and i want to go with tom and i knew he had worked together with me on that to make sure that everything's right and if it isn't right, that we fix it. so he was very much open to that. he didn't hesitate for a second. that's the kind of person he is. that's been the kind of legislator he is. even at a time, and in this body we've seen a lot of ugliness over the years, it seems as though our politics in america has just gotten uglier by the day sometimes. and even in the middle of all that, when that has happened, tom latham has stood tall, he stood proud as an iowan. he's got a lot of common sense like most iowans do and he works with the other side because he knows that the job is to get things done. and that's what tom latham does. he's gotten things done. we are going to miss you, tom. there's no question about that. i think you know that probably better than we do. but we're going to miss you and i know you've heard that from a lot of folks. tom latham, he's a humble iowa

guy. that's what he is. and he's been able to get a tremendous amount done for his district, for my alma mater, iowa state, before he lost that to congressman king. and for any number of other folks in his congressional district over the years. i honor you, i honor kathy, looking forward to seeing you later tonight and thank you for everything, tom. farewell and good luck with whatever you end up doing. thank you. thank you and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman from iowa for his statement. i'd like to yield to another gentleman from iowa, the gentleman, mr. king. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from idaho for yielding to the gentleman from iowa and there are about four people on the floor right now that do know the difference. i rise today, madam speaker, to give a great message of gratitude and thanks to congressman tom latham. i'll tell a little bit of the narrative of how this unfolds from the per of iowa. that's this -- perspective of

iowa. we're all politics all the time. there's no offseason for us. you're always onseason. when the iowa caucuss emerged, there's a -- -- caucuses emerged, there's a big focus on state politics. that's where i first met tom latham and first became aware of his commitment to the political arena and to conservatism. i would want to let the body know, madam speaker, that tom latham didn't come from a place that was a big, magnificent metropolitan, unless you'd want to describe alexander, iowa, with 160-some people as one. 168 people would be the population of alexander, iowa. rooted in now a three-generation seed company and rooted in the soil. and i don't have to explain this to the people from either idaho or iowa. but all new wealth comes from the land. it regenerates itself every year in the form of corn in our

neighborhood and soybean and potatoes in mr. simpson's neighborhood. but when you see where the origin of wealth comes every year and you see the families that came across the prairie, turned thed so for the first time and maybe built their house out of it and put their roots down into that soil and took the family farm that raised the wealth and boiled that out of there and over from the farm to the town to the city and you see a family business with multiple brothers engaged in it and three generations now, you know that they're tied to the heart of the heartland and the good of what's good about iowa and america. that's what tom latham brought to the political arena from the state central committee, to a primary, into the united states congress in 1994 and then catching that wave, the 1994 wave, and being elected to the united states congress 20 years ago. and i take a look at him now and i think, he's no worse for ware. it's the same tom -- wear.

it's the same tom latham that came here 20 years ago that's going off into retirement today or shortly here at the end of this congress and he hasn't lost his enthusiasm. but here's what i see. this is a steve king perspective, madam speaker. that is that everybody that comes to this place has their own style. and their own way of getting things done. but the people that have worked with tom latham for these years know that it isn't always an issue that's run up to the flagpole. it doesn't come necessarily with lights and blairing horns but it gets done. tsh burglarying horns it. -- blairing horns but it gets done it. gets done with building a network of people that want to help and get things done. when i was elected to come to this congress in 2003, and inherited a lot of the real estate that had form early been represented -- formerly represented and the constituents who had been formerly represented by tom latham, i noticed there were ribbon cutting ceremonies taking place in my district and

i wasn't necessarily the lead guy when it came to the ribbon cutting, it was tom latham that laid the ground wisconsin for -- groundwork for that for years and they knew this it and they still know it and the friends and the relationships that were built were doing a good job of representing constituents throughout those years are still there, they still exist and it's been an easy thing for me to step into that neighborhood because they were well taken care of and well represented. and so now after moving from agriculture over to the appropriations committee, just remind the body that tom latham today is the only iowa member on the house appropriations committee and he's done a good number of things with projects, not only the transportation projects but the iowa national guard, ag, economic development, small business development and he's currently chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on transportation, housing and urban development and some related agencies and he serves on the appropriations for agriculture, rural

development, food and drug, and also on homeland security. that's an influential footprint in this congress. and the people that arrive here as freshmen and sophomores recognize that. but i recognize also this man that is rooted in iowa's soil, that is a continuation of the family farm and the family business, that relies upon the very foundation of our economy, that all new wealth comes from the land, and that there's a core of family and faith and neighbors and neighborhood that tom latham has brought to this congress. and wherever he ends up in his retirement, we all want to congratulate him and say to tom latham, congratulations, you have earned it, you picked your time, you've done it your way and there are only about three ways to leave this congress and one of them is to get beat and one of them is to die in office and the other one is to choose your time to retire. and i'm glad that you are fit and vigorous and prepared for a

fit and vigorous retirement. but it wouldn't be appropriate, madam speaker, for me to conclude my portion of this without saying into this congressional record a deep and heartfelt thank you to kathy latham. it's from me personally as well as for a lot of reasons across this hill, the work that she has done. you got oftentimes two pour the -- for the price of one with tom and kathy latham. she has made my life easier and made things work better for iowa, for the house of representatives and for this country and i think that the best interests of all of us have always been what made the decisions in the latham family. which by the way now ranks up in about the top three of iowa political families. so pay attention, madam speaker, to the latham family going forward. they're not done yet but they do have a patriarch that's going to ride off into retirement. thank you a lot, tom latham, for serving our country. god bless you. i yield back. mr. simpson: i thank the gentleman from iowa.

let me say, mr. speaker, that mr. king just mentioned the difference between iowa and idaho. i'll tell you a funny story. when i was first elected tom had been here for four years and i got selected, they used to have a function with a lot of the d.c. reporters and political reporters in town at the washington hilton. and they would select a freshman republican and democrat from both the house and the senate to give little speeches and they were supposed to be kind of funny speeches and stuff. so i didn't know what to do. they selected me as one of them. and so i decided that i was going to explain the difference between iowa and idaho. because there is a difference. so i went through all of the differences in idaho and iowa and of course i recorded it and i got home and turned it on to see how i'd done and underneath, this was on c-span, underneath it said, congressman mike simpson, republican, ohio. so we not only get mixed up with idaho and iowa also, but

between ohio and idaho and iowa. so that's always made it a little more challenging. but tom and i have served together on the appropriations committee for i guess the last 12 years that i've been on it and he was on it before that. as was mentioned he was the chairman of the transportation committee. i'm the chairman of the energy and water committee. both committees very important to both idaho and iowa and to the country. and we've been able to work cooperatively to try to address issues that affect the country and our respective states. i think i've -- the thing i've always noticed most about tom, and both speakers have already mentioned it, is the way he works. the way he gets things done. i've always noticed that tom takes the job that he was elected to do very seriously. but he never takes himself too seriously. which is an important

characteristic, i think. others have enjoyed working with him on both sides of the aisle. i've certainly enjoyed working with him. and again we're going to miss him. ality the end of each session -- at the end of each session, some people, as steve king mentioned, decide it's time to retire. tom has decided that. and not only are we in congress as friendses going to miss him, -- friends going to miss him, frankly the country is going to miss him. at this time i'd like to yield to the gentleman from california, mr. nunes. mr. nunes: i thank the gentleman from idaho, my good friend. i want to echo what you were saying, mr. simpson. tom latham actually is a guy who came here, doesn't seek the lime light but seeks to get things done. and it's tough for me to say this about him because he is my good friend and he's going to rip me about this later, but he really does try to get things done. you don't see him running out to the tv's, to the news show, you don't see him running out and holding press conferences.

what you do see is someone who works and i've had numerous opportunities, i can tell you that when i first aarrived here to washington, tom was one of the first people who came up to he nd talked to me about -- asked if he could help me in any way, he was a farmer from obviously the great state of iowa and he knew that i was from a -- a farmer from the great state of california. we shared about what we had in common. and then he asked how he could be helpful. and from day one tom's been one of my best friends here and i don't think there's ever been a day that we've been in congress that i haven't spoke to tom and then, you know, we always talk over the time that we're not here also. i've had times where tom's came -- numerous times tom's came out to california to visit my district and to do some good quality work, meeting with some of my constituents. and at the same time talking about tom's work ethic, tom's had me out to his district in iowa several times and

typically you think you're going to do a short little meeting with some folks but i can tell that you when i went out there, tom actually puts me to work. we had to spend a full day of working and i remember, tom, that you put on a conference for all of your community leaders, your business leaders and your government leaders, and you had people from all over the state of iowa who came there for a full day's session about how his office, being the last wing to the federal government, could better serve his constituents. and that's really what this is about, madam speaker, is tom worked very hard for his constituents and he didn't try to get press out of it, didn't try to make a big deal about it, but you could tell when i was on the ground there, the several times i was there, it was about working. and it was about working with people, working with his constituents and trying to represent them here in washington in the best way that

he could. his district has moved around so much over the years. but tom's family, obviously great people. his wife kathy deserves a lot of praise of having to deal with him traveling back and forth. takes a special person and kathy is a special, special person to deal with, not only deal with tom, but also to put up -- having to deal with the tough things that people say. mr. latham has been through many tough elections and takes a tough person to deal with things that come out in political campaigns. so i know tom's very proud of his children and grandchildren and that's part of the reason why he's leaving us, because he served his country, did the best

that he could do for the time that he was here. and i think as a long tradition of serving the people of iowa, just like his parents who were community leaders in northern iowa there and also his brothers, i think you had at least one or two brothers that served with distinction in vietnam as i remember. and i met all of them i think over the years. but any way, madam speaker, this is -- it's a sad day for me to be down here on the floor of the house, but a happy day for tom and his family and he can spend time with his children and grandchildren, which when we're here in washington, it's tough do. with that, i yield back. mr. simpson: the gentleman from california mentioned something that's very important that a lot of people don't realize. it takes a special individual and special relationship with

your spouse be it husband or wife to be able to serve in this place. how many nights you spend away from your family when you're here and i'm certain that with most spouses, when i look at mine and tom's kathy, this was not something that they had planned on when they got married. and to be able to -- i want to say put up with that and the separation that it causes and the pressure it puts on a family is extremely difficult. but kathy is truly a person that is special and has put up with him for 20 years and how many years of marriage -- 39 years of marriage, so she has put up with him for a long time and we're honored to have spouses like that that support us and keep us going. the reason i asked for the --

for unanimous consent at the start of this special order to insert for people to insert their comments was because is tonight is the white house christmas reception for members of congress. there is going to be a lot of people getting ready to go down to the white house. one of those individuals who wanted to be here was the speaker of the house, who is one of tom's best friends. they have been together ever since i have come and consequently i have been allowed to associate with them. i don't know why, but we've got along and done some great things and we are going to miss tom. but this process goes on. people get elected, whether it's any of us that replace us and will step up to the plate and do the job. it's an amazing system we have been given and i would like to

yield to my good friend from owa, tom latham. mr. latham: i say thank you, mr. simpson, great friend for doing this this evening, mr. nunes, steve king and dave loebsack. i'm not going to sing. we'll pass that by. but again thank you very much for the honor you have given and the kind words here tonight. i will just say, the thing i'll miss most are my good friends here. and that part of it really is hard, because it becomes an

extended family over time and people who you know, who you work with, who you trust on a day-to-day basis, i will miss that. there is a lot of other stuff i won't miss here. but the personal relationships and the friendships and mr. simpson mentioned the speaker. and i'll just tell you there's no one who could be a better friend and someone that i owe so uch to john and debey. we love them and will continue to that friendship as i will with all the colleagues that we have come to know and love. anyone who does this job for any period of time understands you are never going to be successful or accomplish anything without the great work of your staff.

and i have been blessed both in iowa and here in washington with tremendous people that have worked so hard for me and committed themselves to the people of iowa and to this country. and all of them are very, very special to me. one person, chief of staff, who happens to be in the chamber tonight, has been with me since day one, the year before i got elected. so 21 years he has had to put up with me. thank you very much. thanks to all the members of my staff. it has been a pressure for me, a great, great honor to have the privilege of serving with them, because we have all done it on a cumulative basis and try to do the best job possible for the people of iowa. i have to say thank you.

i have represented a lot of the state, having the different districts, starting with the th rd rict, 4 tl district, 3 district, but it is the honor of my life to serve the people of iowa and have that opportunity to be their representative in washington to try to accomplish things for their good, for the good of the country, and again, just to say thank you. verybody knows the sacrifice those in congress knows the sacrifice of your family. and my parents who were such great role models taught me so much. i have four brothers and their

families. , my daughter and her husband, keaton, mason and carson and jill, my daughter and her husband nick and their son will, love them. and what they have done to support me over the years is tremendous and will always be appreciated. obviously, there's one person you could never be successful if you didn't have the support of your spouse and kathy has been just exceptional, putting up with all the back and forth, having two residences, having to travel here, keep everything going at home while i'm away. the first 19 years we were married, i was on the road with our family business. the last 20 years, i have been gone being in congress.

and so obviously, her love, her support has meant everything in the world to me and thank you, dear. let me just say in closing, it's been an amazing ride for 20 years and a kid -- grew up like mr. simpson said and mr. king said, grew up on a farm outside of a town of 168 people. to come to washington and represent iowa here is obviously a huge honor from that background. and anyone -- any member listening -- but if you ever get to the point when you walk across the street and look at the dome and get your chill up your spine, you probably should go home. i still get that chill, but it's

time for myself and my family to go a different course. i'm extraordinarily proud to have served here. this is a great, great body. it's something is an incredible institution. it is truly a slice of america when you come here and you meet the different folks. all you learn about this great country, having to take into consideration a lot of different iews and constituencies from all across the country is an amazing experience. i'm very, very proud of that and will always feel that my time was well spent here. but more so today, i'm excited about the future, because we are going to have an opportunity to spend more time with the family, with kathy, the kids and grandchildren and do some things that we haven't been able to do before. i'm proud of the past, excited

about the future and i just thank god i have had the opportunities i had to grow up in this state like iowa and community, parents like i had and brothers and the support of the family, but this is the greatest country in the world. will always be because of our system of government as hard as it is to get something done, as difficult as it is, it is the right thing. i never learned -- i never learned a thing when i'm talking. you learn things when you listen to other folks and maybe step back and listen to each other more and maybe we would be better off. with that, let me say thank you to everyone. it's a great country. god bless america and i'm excited about the future. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. simpson: i thank the

gentleman, and again, we're going to miss you. don't be a stranger. you still have another week or two to serve before we sine die and now that you call file for medicare, you wish you and cagget youy the best in this next journey of your life and make sure you get out to idaho and we'll take some famous potatos and iowa corner and put and ogether with steak have a barbecue. i thank you for your service. we'll miss you. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rork for 30 minutes. -- rohrabacher for 30 minutes.

mr. rohrabacher: i thank the gentlelady. all of us will get there some if and this is a nobel job we make it such and many people that served here have done great things for the united states of america. why, because they believe in the principles of the united states, what was set down by our founding fathers, but even more than that, what we have had here and what we need more of is we need leaders who care specifically about the american people and what impact they are having on the american people and what impact those policies that they advocate will have on the american people. all too often, people come to washington and pretty soon what they care about is this or that specific special interest or

they have a special idea, special interest or special ideas. they have a philosophy. they have a vision that goes beyond what the benefit of the american people are and what they are going to establish because of this philosophical commitment to some ideal. well, both of those are enemies of the well-being of the people of the united states. if people who are elected by the population come here and are loyal to special interests who have to make a profit in a specific area, even though it might be detrimental to the american people as a whole and people who come here, they want to see their intellectual and philosophical ideal put into place. well, the american people get left out with that type of leadership. and what we are doing, and today, and one of the most important issues that we have been facing for almost a decade

now of constant pressure to do something about what? about immigration policy in the united states. and what we do, what we finally do on this issue will tell us who we care about and what are our ideals and who we care about more, do we care more about special interests or some ideal notion that's not -- or do we care about what policy do we do specifically to the american people. . we have heard repeatedly about the plight of the people who are here in this country illegally. over and over again about how these poor souls, we need to give them legal status, we need to reach out and do something for them, because they are in a bad situation and, yes, they came here because there was a desperate situation in that land from which they came.

unfortunately when you hear people constantly talking about how we're going to help these illegal immigrants who are here in our midst, you don't hear about what the impact of what's being recommended to help the illegal immigrants is going to have on the american people. this is what we should be talking about. this is what we need -- needs to be -- for people elected by the american people should have what is going to happen to the american people if this policy that's being recommended is in place. yes, we would like to help people who come here illegally and we'd like to help people all over the world. there's no reason not, if we care about the people who come here illegal -- legally, they are human beings and we care about -- and we care about them, by the way, they are also people we can identify with because if we were in their spot, we'd do the same. we care about them. but you know what?

we have to care more about the american people. we have to care about them, if they care about the things that we're doing here or whether they just write off their government because their government's more concerned about a foreigner who has come here illegally rather than about how -- the well-being of their own -- of the american family and the american working people. we know -- and when we hear this word comprehensive, we need -- over and over again we've heard, we have to have comprehensive immigration reform. comprehensive immigration reform. what does that mean? why have -- why do we hear that over and over again? because they can't use the word amnesty. and they know that really comprehensive immigration reform means one thing. and one thing only. because there's really not any type of real argument about making our system better but only to them when they say comprehensive immigration reform, they mean changing the

status, legalizing the status of those millions of people who are here illegally. they came there are 11 million. that is an old number. that number has not been updated. and it's probably -- most everyone i talked to believes that it's more like 20 million illegals who are here. not 11 million. real e is not any problem with the idea when they say comprehensive reform, on our part, anybody's part, to say, let's make the system more effective. yes, we need border control, for example, and we need to restructure the visa system because there's a lot of people who not just come across the border illegally but come here and overstay their visas. the largest number of illegals now, people thinking this is sort of -- that we're talking about just people from land

america, no, we've got people coming in from all over the world, many of them on visas, many of them sneaking across the border. who have come here illegally and are currently residing here and are currently -- that number of people have an impact on the well-being of the american people. so, yes, let's make the system better. but let's realize that we're not talking about things that we disagree on, it's all been about whether you legalize the status of people who are here illegally. but let's just note this. we have no apologies to make about the generosity of the american people with our current system of immigration. yes, it needs to be reformed and made more efficient. but we provide for over a million immigrants to come into our country legally every year, to put that in perspective, hat is more than all the

illegal immigration into other countries of the world combined. so we permit more legal immigration than every other country of the world combined. but yet we over and over again -- we are made to feel guilty that we in some way should feel guilty about our immigration system. and about the fact that you have people who are here illegally and we won't legalize their status. what would legalizeing their status do? what would it do? we know what it would do for them. these people who are here illegally would be, if they have a legal status, they would en be able to be perhaps eligible for government programs, maybe that's part of that. certainly their relatives would be, their children would be. right now even people who are here illegally are the recipients of government

benefits. of people who are here receiving, for example, their children have health care, emergency health care and they of course -- an emergency becomes anything that someone is sick with. and they also of course are here and their children are educated here. we have government benefits that people have managed, if they end up coming here illegally and having one child, ne child then justifies a wide variety of federal assistance and other welfare assistance programs to these individuals who are basically here illegally. what does that mean? at a time when we are $500 billion more in debt every year, we are borrowing money from overseas in order to take care of these people who have come here illegally. that doesn't make any sense at

all. and it especially doesn't make any sense when we know that our own government programs, our own government programs today, we are struggling to make sure -- to make ends meet, to make sure these programs stay vital, to make sure they have enough money to function and do their job efficiently and the veterans administration. we heard how the veterans administration had not been doing its job. well, the money that we spend on people who come here illegally comes right out of the pool of money that should be going to americans or should at least be going to reduce our debt so that in the future our american children aren't going to have to pay it off. now, we have nothing to be ashamed of in terms of the overall number of people coming here illegally. but when those -- but even now, when the people who are here illegally, their impact is incredibly detrimental, as i just said in terms of how much money is being spent by the

government on services to them, rather than services to the american people. and we also know that illegals of course, they do take jobs, they are working at jobs, most of them. and they are hardworking, good people. but what impact are they having on the jobs that american people want? they have actually taken jobs well, let's e -- say americans wouldn't want to work at that pay level. but the pay level that we're talking about is the pay level that happens when you have tens of millions of illegals in a country willing to work for a pittance. they have come to our country and been down -- bent down the wages of america's lower income people. they have taken jobs that should have gone to americans. for example, i know that the hotel and restaurant industry is very upset with the idea of

not legalizing the status of these people. and let me just note that once you legalize the status of these 20 million illegals that are in our country, well, what will happen, of course, is that they aren't going to work for the pittance wages anymore and they will start making more wages and then there will be another wave of illegals that will come in that will underbid them. so these particular people will earn more money, but the american people will earn less and less. and right now there are many women in the united states who are single mothers, many urban women who have families and live around big hotels, and the hotels hire people who come here illegally to clean the rooms when there are many thousands of single mothers who would love to drop their child off at school, clean that room in the middle of the day, which is the hours that they need them at the hotel, and come back by the end of the day to pick up their child. but they're not willing to do it now because those people who

work in those hotels are paid, if their illegals, are paid a pittance and the american people, you know, yes, they won't work for a pittance. and they shouldn't. and it will be a good thing if, yeah, ok, if it increases the price of a hotel room by $10 a night, in order to make sure that we have american citizens who are paid well and able to take care of their family, yes, that's the policy we should have. we shouldn't have a policy that instead brings down the cost of that hotel room by a certain amount, increases the profit of the hotel by a certain amount and is paid for by the fact that american women no longer can take those jobs because there isn't enough being paid for them to take care of their family. now of course if they live as many illegals live, three or four families to a home, they might be able to succeed or at least survive. that's not the kind of society we need to build here. that's not what america was all

about. and what america and what our policy should be is aimed at people who are american citizens, who would like those jobs and if we don't permit this illegal flood into our country, wages will go up as compared to if we don't and, yes, we should be happy that the american people are making more money. over the last 20 years we've actually seen the wages of the american people in real terms go down as we have illegals been pouring into our country. whose side are we on? who do we care for? and that's what this is all about. we're being told we're heartless because we don't care enough about the people who are illegally in our country to legalize their status. when in fact we need to make sure that we're not doing anything that's going to hurt the american people who are struggling right now. and what will happen if we legalize the status of those people who have come here illegally? what will happen? let's say there's 20 million

here right now, officially it's only 11 million. but every one of those people that we legalize the status for are then going to be eligible for family reunification. there are tens of millions of other people who are going to pour in. it's estimated by just the legal people coming in after an amnesty type that we're talking about, we're talking about 40 million new people, poor, mainly poor foreigners, coming to our country. does anyone think that's not going to have a huge impact on the economy of our country? on the -- on our economic system? on our neighborhoods, on our schools? and the well-being of working people? does anyone think that 40 million foreigners -- and that's what's going to happen. when you hear comprehensive immigration reform, think legalizing the status which will then eventually bring into our country 40 million new

foreigners, mainly poor people. well, that's what this debate is all about. i would submit that it is not wrong for people and it is not hateful, it's not being too concerned about money and material things, to think in our hearts about our own people before we think about the well-being of foreigners. what keeps america together? we think -- look, we don't have one race, we don't have one religion, we don't have one ethnic group here. what we've got are people who have come here and are part of the american family. we have to care about what happens within the american family. because we don't have that sharing of one race or one religion or one ethnic group. and so what is it going to do in we -- if we bring in 40 million more foreigners now to those people who are now part of our american family?

some say, we should expand the american family. we could say, hey, anybody in the world who wants to get here , we're going to make them an american and just forget about what that does to the 300 million americans who are out there depending on their government to watch out for their interests. so, what would happen if we have that situation? we will have a very harmful decline in the well-being both of their communities and in their jobs and in the government services that they are able to collect, of the american family. so, again, that doesn't mean that illegals who are here are bad people. they aren't. and that doesn't mean the poor people around the world who will flood into our country, because if we legalize the status of those who are here, you will see a flood into the country.

just think of legalizing the status of people who were ought just that discussion of that issue brought 50,000, 60,000 people and they sent their children to the border and whatever happened to those kids, by the way? what happened to those 60,000 kids? they are all over the united states now. you know what? in schools in california, we have children coming in here illegally from other countries and some of them are carrying diseases. who is watching out for our children? we do carry about those 60,000 kids that are there and millions more kids that come in if we legalize the illegal immigrants. we care about our kids first.

there is nothing wrong about that. we don't have to apologize for it and we have the most generous legal system in the world. for those people -- well, immigration helps our country and economy, if you look at the statistics that are being presented, often what you are being told about are the effect of legal immigrants, which is true. they do add and i personally would like to go on the record as saying that i believe in legal immigration. i believe that our million people, we can absorb that. we can absorb one million more. we should refine our systems so those that are coming in have a means and a skill or an education level so they will be contributing to the wealth of the country rather than consuming it. and there are a lot of businesses -- let's structure

the legal immigrants in that way so it meets the needs of america and brings in highly educated people into our country. but when we bring in people who are not that, when we bring in people who are not producing wealth and are consumers, that means there is less wealth in our society and means that america's lower income people are worse off. when i was a kid, i mowed the lawns in my neighborhood. you get a good work ethic. i painted houses and dug fence posts and i was an ice cream scooper at marine land's snack bar. one of the factors of illegal immigration and especially if we legalize the status and draw more illegals in and they know, all we have to do is get there.

all these entry-level positions, these positions are giving young people a chance to get some work experience, many of them are being taken by people who are here illegally and they are willing to work at a very low level and don't just become entry-level jobs. that means that job is no longer available to an american kid, who wants to get some experience in the workplace. a box boy or someone who works at a fast food restaurant. we are actually hurting our young people, we are hurting our poor people, and of course, we are hurting people who are dependent on government programs -- before i go on to that, there are a group of people who would like to be self-sufficient and they have skills, but have some sort of physical disability.

and you know, those people, struggling to come out and have self-dignity in earning their own living, those people are being replaced by people by, well, we'll hire this illegal, we can get an able-bodied illegal in here for the same amount. so why have someone who has a physical disability? the people at the very lowest level, where is unemployment the highest? our black community and in the hispanic-american community and these are the people who will be the worst hit if we legalize the status of those who are here illegally and if there are tens of millions more. at least there will be 40 million and when word gets out that we have had surrender of our borders, it will be more

than that. it will be a massive betrayal of the regular people and lower-income american citizens. nd the disabled people and lower-income people but what about those who worked all of their life to make sure they pay their taxes and knowing the government was going to have certain things to back them up as they got older or certain things they would need in cases of emergency or how about the education of their family and things such as that? these programs of so many tens of so many more illegals because we legalized the status of those already here. some of the programs will break down and we already know -- so straight faceth a can people in this body say they

are backing the president's efforts to provide five million this is the first step now, five million work permits. this is at a time of high unemployment. we are defining who we care for. we have already defined who we are as a nation on how we have set down a rule of law and whether we try to be fair and imperfect society, we know that. we know we have some real problems that we have to solve nd work together on, multi racial, multi ethnic society. away if we ill go have tens of millions illegals in our country. the poorest of the poor will be hurt. and when we give five million

work permits at a time, when we have such high unemployment, we are actually betraying america's -- american people who are struggling at the lower end of the economic scale. we are betraying them. and it's something we all need to think about. we need to save the american people. we are on your side. we want to do things that are right for you. and i have been dismayed and that element -- not disdain but frivolous overlooking of the well-being of the american peoplely when they are advocating comprehensive immigration reform. let us also note that -- thation is something is on our agenda, but there are

special interests at stake here and the reason why it's being pushed is not just this humanitarian special ideal, which i say, we have to make sure that those special ideas that they think become more human to give money away to various peoples of the world that it doesn't hurt americans. but there are special interests who are profitting from this. not only a bad idea and bad ideal that is driving us towards these decisions, but we have special interests that want cheap labor. we have people in the business community that want cheap labor. now don't tell me that americans can no longer work as carpenters r plumbers or roofers. the construction industry is hiring illegals.

there is wrong. there are people who can do these jobs, but will take the lower pay alternative. people will claim they have to hire illegals. if people are being paid more money. but we have special interests that want lower pay and special interests on that side of the aisle who want political pawns to come into this country and serve them when election day comes in the future and you have 40 million new people here over a 20-year period that they will be voting for their political party. that's just how cynical it is. low wages and political pawns are being pushed. that's the factor that's pushing this comprehensive program that will be dramatically harmful to the well-being of the american people. and i would hope that we postponeany decision on that until next year when we

republicans can debate this issue and go to the american people and get their guidance of what policy that they want our country to have when it comes to immigration in our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 5108, an act to establish the law school clinic certification program of the united states patent and trademark office and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. rohrabacher: i do now move that we asouthern. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. tonight on "the

communicators" on c-span2. host: we are back with james hoecker. we are going to talk about the power grid. i want to show viewers a headline that many of them saw last week. what happened to detroit? guest: my understanding is they connector --nd are interconnect or fail. it took done a great deal of the city. it took down firehouses and police stations. apparently, it has been a chronically underinvested in detroit.

this is the result. ?ost: how old is it how does it compare to other grids in the united states? we are talking about the distribution level. it was owned by a municipal utility. as a branch of the municipal government, detroit has had significant financial difficulties. it hasn't replaced a good deal of its distribution facilities. we have cities like san antonio or san francisco that have spent a great deal of money on distributional. beir systems of proven to very reliable. can benot to say that we

altogether comfortable that the grid atthe transmission a higher voltage level doesn't have challenges. the age of them is one thing. transmission facilities and distribution facilities are frequently 50 or 60 or even 70 years old. their lives should be 40 to 50 years. this is the difficulty that ensues. host: why is this a headline on the front page of the newspaper with the sub headline that this is a sparking concern? guest: it is a concern. infrastructure in this country is a concern generally. system is critical to the economy.

whether we are talking about local distribution or the high-voltage multistate transmission network, when they fail or when they are interrupted by whether or other events -- weather or other events, the price to pay can be in norman's. whether outages cost the united --weather outages cost united states great deal of money. host: who is responsible for the grid? guest: if you think about the grid as all the energy delivery distribution and customers, a lot of the

facilities are subject to state regulation at the distribution level and federal regulation at the ferc. a number of environmental agencies, the grid is partly owned by the federal government ,n parts of the country reliability is controlled or overseen by the national liability corporation. this is the north american reliability corporation. we are highly connected with canada and mexico. they only look after a standard-setting on the power level. that is also high-voltage transmission.

the question i'm sure that comes to people's minds is everyone is in charge. consequently, no one is in charge. it's a difficult challenge. there are a lot of people working on it. we are spending an enormous amount of money. at the distribution level alone, utilities spend $20 billion a year on distribution. we have a challenge to invest as much as 300 million -- $300 billion in the system over the next 20 or 25 years. frankly, we are attracting private capital to that effort. has beenenge so far bigger than our resources. host: the american society of

civil engineers give grades to the infrastructure. they have given it repeatedly infrastructure a d+. guest: that is not very comforting, is it? they have given most infrastructure a similar grade. and bridgess roads or waterways or water treatment transmission system is improving. challenges. the we have to make sure that we ourselves content with the system as it exists. we will have more detroit's or more of these big regional

outages like we had in 2003 in the northeast. host: we are talking about the energy grid. we have a graphic that was put together. it begins with the generation of electricity. it is transmitted and distributed. it goes to homes and businesses and other facilities. .he end-use powers machinery it allows your home to prepare food. the vulnerability of it is our topic. we are talking to a former regulator. beverly is in columbia, missouri. would go inongress and pass a big transportation bill, wouldn't that help a lot with our electric, water, sewer? wouldn't that put millions of class people to work?

guest: that's a great question. is privatelysystem owned. it is owned by private utilities. therefore, it relies on infusions of private capital. are federal administrations that are federally financed. the administration has spent a great deal of money on research and development and the stimulus was devoted to improving the technology of the grid. 'sngresse

responsibility has more to do with the regulatory environment for investment in the electricity system. finance highways through a trust fund and tax revenue. a great deal of the electric system just needs to be regulated more rationally. that would help immeasurably and eliminate business uncertainty. it would drive more private capital. as i was telling greta, there are tremendous numbers of diversity of agencies involved at the state and federal level. regulate manage and the electric system. it's a system that has grown over the last half century or more.

that don'tn in ways make a reasonable sense anymore. oft: the american society civil engineers has put together a report on electricity infrastructure. "failure to act" is what they have called it. they estimated that the investment gap will be $673 billion. guest: that is a good news bad news situation. and 2005, we chronically underinvested in the high-voltage system. we did not put investment in it. as a result, we have reliability

problems. a lot of other things were happening to stress the system even more during that time. since then, we have invested $10 billionween and $15 billion. that does not help detroit's situation. that is another need for capital. it does mean that the industry recognizes the problem. we are trying to address it. this is a monster problem. about $300 billion in needs just in the transmission system. $1.5 trillion that needs to be invested in the electric system and generally.

that means modernizing it, not just replacing the wires and the substations and some of the transformers area and we need to infuse it with advanced communication technologies. that will give us a very flexible and resilient and reliable system. report, they this rise and gdp will fall by $496 billion and the economy 529,000 fewerith jobs than it would otherwise have by the year 2020. is the government investing this? said, the government

is not the main investor. lot in various a aspects of developing advanced technologies whether it is storage or other kinds of renewable energy. the nuclear industry relies heavily on government assurances. can we planstion is and construct and pay for, which is a big issue, this much infrastructure in time to prevent us from having major economic dislocation? host: more numbers for you as we continue this discussion, a failure to meet the gap will in 2012.illion

it will cost businesses $10 billion in 2012. this is obviously an earlier report. in texas is an independent. what do you make of this? what is your question? i work in the power industry as a boilermaker. toot of our jobs that we go .ur outages -- are outages some of these units are 50 years old. they have added things to reduce the mercury and arsenic and contamination in the atmosphere. the last job i worked was in wyoming. up 50it wasn't but

megawatt unit. it's like a muffler on a car. the catalytic converter was bigger than the powerhouse. technology that the epa is 70's is from back in the when they just put out anything. you didn't have any of the technology that you have now to catch these pollutants and reduce them. dependables are more and less damaging than a nuclear. efficient, that then you have the radioactive waste that you have to contend with two or 300 years from now. investinge any whatsoever and to the power industry as far as rebuilding these plants and making new plants and getting rid of these

old ones. they are shutting down these old ones through epa regulations. they are not building any new ones. that raises a lot of questions. mentioned isas you subject to a great many more environmental regulations, particularly in the clean air area. powerst recent clean ruled that the epa put forth to regulate co2, all of these exact the cost. they have the biggest impact on fossil generation, coal in particular. we have relied for generations on coal to provide electricity. it's very reliable.

on the other hand, it has environmental consequences at the epa has difficulty with. to ensurenge now is that as we transition to a better coal plant or better renewable energy or more natural , we don't push this transition so quickly that we undermine the reliability of the system. that is a major concern in congress. i think it's something that the epa has been sensitized to. the industry is investing in generation. there are a lot of new forms of generation. they are going to be frequently located in places where there is

not adequate transmission to get those facilities to get that output to customers. solar. true of wind and that tends to be in the middle of the country where there are great resources but not a lot of customers. we need to move that power and have a more flexible, more extensive and technologically distribution system. we have studied this. transmissions much as experts say we will need over the next 20 years, we would be two 200,000,000 full-time equivalent jobs annually during that. time. host: we have this graphic that

was put together. we are talking about wind, solar, power plants, hydroelectric dams. the transmission and distribution of it, you are talking about infrastructure that means substations and interconnections. hi, bob. caller: thanks for taking my call. i remember back in the days of enron, i don't want to see the point where youpoin have a company that buys and sells energy. that part should be regulated. that was a shining example of why you should not do that out in california.

some of the rates of power when up by 400%. it was completely unreliable. they were selling electricity to the highest that her. -- highestnk that bidder. i don't think that it's the way to go. i think they should dial back on some of that. they should get people who understand what is going on to what thishappening caller before me mentioned. i don't want to see another and run. i think we need regulations in place. we need to keep it from being sold to the highest bidder. it got to be a circus. little biased as a recovering regulator.

i agree with you completely. this is a system that will forever be regulated because it is so important to the public interest. these are essential facilities that we cannot do without. the state level, they recognize that. they are determined to have electricity available very reliably at the lowest reasonable cost while still inducing investment. part of that means that we would need to have a competitive electricity market. when those started to emerge in california, they were not necessarily well designed a.

enron and some other traders in electricity took advantage of that. prices did spike. it was terrible. think it's federal policy to deregulate electricity. that is not the same as promoting competitive markets. that will ultimately have a lot of efficiency and benefits. the: what authority does federal regulatory commission have? over: they have authority resale. that constitutes 15% or 20% of the total electric system. overalso have authority electric transmission because it tens to be interstate in nature.

the bulk of the regulation in the industry is at the state level. are the things we talked about initially. distribution, prices to generation, what kinds of fuels are used and so forth, that is heavily state regulated. unfortunately, states don't always see rings the same way. we have multiple regulatory regimes with different kinds of criteria and uncertainty for companies, particularly for companies that are operating on a multistate or even interregional basis. host: is any of the power grid managed by offshore resources? guest: managed by offshore entities or -- host: he says offshore

resources, but yeah, offshore entities. guest: all the electric system is owned or managed by domestic resources. the of those companies may affiliates or subsidiaries of .oreign entities but we have had foreign companies, mostly european, invest in u.s. electricity system, and that has worked out very well. they become regulated just like any other entity. vulnerable torid a terrorist attack? , we had one example of that in california a couple years ago. that is something of a mystery yet to be solved. it had all the marks of a terrorist attack. a lot of high-power weapons were used.

they took down a major substation in silicon valley. it did bring on the california .ystem sufficiently redundant reliability was not seriously affected. our system -- it is spread all .ver a lot of it is in places where there are not a lot of people to pay attention to who is out there. frankly, it is vulnerable, at least in theory. if this is an example of things to come i would be very apprehensive. we have not seen a lot of this kind of behavior. host: cost analysis of what sort of economic damage that could do if the terrorist organization were able to attack a major substation and have success bringing down the electrical system? guest: well, let's put it this

way. we have a lot of outages in the country. probably tens of thousands of them at the local level every year. they are not long-duration. they are usually created by weather problems. economic damage can be fairly limited. but once in a while something will happen to strategic facilities. outageor example, the that cascaded from northern ohio into canada and the u.s. northeast in 2003. the economic loss from that incident, which lasted a day, half, was $10 billion. that was not terrorism, obviously. but the electric system is

sufficiently central and important to the economy that there is inevitably going to be an economic cost. and that cost, depending on how big the problem is, could be substantial. but like i said, most of the weather-related outages in the resulted inally $500 billion in economic -- loss of economic output -- host: a year? guest: every year. host: on our line for republicans, ryan, you are next in arlington, virginia. i am calling today because i'm president lockable aspects of the president's power and it -- power plant that shutting down our power plants across the country, it may repeat some of the rock outs -- blackouts we saw in the northeast in 2003.

the second thing i would like for the destitute bring up again is what -- the guest to bring up again is what the cost will be for the average consumer is when the clean power plan comes through -- excuse me -- host: ryan, we will take that question could cost to the consumer. guest: the epa as model the cost and theirmer assumption is that there will be a cost but it will be relatively small. i don't know precisely what that would be. it depends on a lot of variables, of course. in terms of how much private investment is induced to come in and provide natural gas-fired generation, renewable energy generation, energy efficiency measures, all those things tend to mitigate the cost of electricity. ly be are will certain

cost to the collective environmental regulations. let's not put this all on epa. there are lots of environmental regulations. a lot of them with other federal agencies, but including state environmental protection ies, on protecting species, the list is endless. and those have a routine cost as well. all i would say that in the interest of protecting the environment, we need to move forward but we need to move forward in a measured, reasonable way that is not analyze -- that does not penalize the average consumer unduly, even though they may be receiving some considerable health benefits. host: let's go to kingston, new

york. independent caller. caller: yes, good morning. thank you for c-span. i wanted to touch base on the clean power plants. i am calling about the fact that solar energy can build a cleaner, more efficient , and --gy writ technology grid, and i believe that the clean power plant that the president has pushed into effect with the pa will bring forward a revolution for our american dream and make it a .ore powerful, cleaner planet with ferc doing their work, we have the opportunity to create jobs for a lot of people in local communities, and i am glad you are doing the work that you do. well, i appreciate that. the clean power plan has very noble and reasonable objectives,

no question about it. we need to be more energy efficient. we need to have more renewable energy in the energy mix. we need to take advantage of this very important and abundant domestic natural gas resource that we suddenly have. future isk that the pretty bright for the grid for the industry as a whole, and therefore for american consumers. but as they say, the devil is in the details. and how we get there and exactly how long we take and what measures we institute is critically important.

be i think we have a lot to optimistic about, but we need to be very careful. this is a very critical industry with very slim reserve margins. we are going through a transition that is going to be a little touch and go for a while. our guest served on the federal energy regulatory commission from 1997 to 2001, talking about the vulnerability of u.s. power grid this morning. the energy department on their website, energy.gov, said that they are going through a major evolution, pointing to micro-grids and smart meters. all of these technologies will be tremendously important in making the system more reliable, more resilient. the ability to cover after a major problem or outage.

storage of electricity is generated and consumed simultaneously. we don't have a great way to set it aside and bank it for future use. storage is something of a game changer. there is battery storage, there is compressed air storage. a lot of this technology is in the experimental development stage. micro-grids, there are a lot of pilot projects, and it all augers very well for the future of the grid. but like anything else, it costs a lot of money to develop these, and then we're talking about deployment. in the meantime, we can't just take a vacation from using electricity. we have to begin to integrate

technologies into the system in a way that is efficient and not terribly costly to the consumer. host: on our line for democrats, barbara is watching us in pennsylvania. caller: i'm worried about the terrorism thing. i wonder why this is not up on the national security and homeland security level -- and the best people we have are put to work on it, and does the satellite system has any bearing on any of this. if i would strike, i would hit the grid because he would drive us up the wall, we would be in real trouble, i do not see the anybody is doing a whole lot to provide protection the area. host: all right. james hoecker? guest: i think the concerns are warranted but there was a lot going on in this area.

a bigger threat than simply blowing up transmission towers is cyber attacks. since our electricity systems are becoming more animated by digital technologies and the internet, the attack through cyber means is a major concern. i think the department of homeland security is working on this. nist. ferc. the national institute of standards and technology, ferc, the north american electrical liability corporation, there are a lot of entities out there. countering terrorism is not some you want to do on the front page of "the washington post." i mean, it is hopefully

something that is being focused on in a concerted way by people with those kinds of responsibilities. but i do share the caller's concern that it would be nice if we knew once in a while what exactly what kinds of resources are being devoted to stopping that sort of behavior. host: it seems that there has in concern among those who have been part of ferc, specifically the former commissioner, that there is not enough focus on this, and pointing back to the california incident where that major substation was -- guest: right, right. former chairman wellinghoff has focused on is like a laser, and i think that has helped get the attention of a lot of people in the security community, but i do believe, based on what i have

known and my conversations with him, that there is a lot going on in terms of trying to ensure that these things don't happen. but frankly, there's an awful lot of -- many aspects of the electric grid that you point out are out in the open. they are in places where there is not a lot of protection or surveillance. that makes them seem vulnerable. host: joe on twitter, the electromagnetic pulse and what that could do -- he says "induce by detonation of nuclear weapons," but could that shutdown? guest: that or sun storms, all kinds of things that could happen. the industry is concerned about it, focused on it. like i said, a lot of this is a

sign that by anticipating the worst, we are beginning to prepare for these eventualities. i am glad that the industry shares the kind of concerns that the caller had. host: liberty, texas, c.w., republican. thanks for hanging on the line. caller: i agree with the gentleman from texas who pretty much it said that if you want to improve or build anything new in the country, you will be penciled in with the fine print and the regulations. we are not having a solution-driven economy. it seems like, in my young adult opinion, that we have a fear-based economy. it is like the tweet just said, if everybody is scared, they should be looking to the sun.

we are just one coronal mass away from being sent back to saying yabba dabba do like fred flintstone. guest: i am glad the texans are calling it because they are lucky down there. they have been able to build wind transmission in west texas and move that through transmission lines, and to build facilities and infrastructure in a way that reinforces their very energetic economy down there. that electricity is useful in the resurgence of oil and gas development in west texas. you never know what happens positively. when you invest in infrastructure, it enables you to do a whole lot of things, some of them you can't even anticipate. infrastructure, like the the investments in texas, are in many ways the most important

thing you never think about. i think that we need to make sure we don't end up living like fred flintstone, and we can do that by strengthening the network systems we already have. host: al is next, cambridge, ohio, independent. caller: hi, greta and james. glad to be able to get through to you. i had a question and i wanted to make a comment first. sorry i missed the show from the very beginning. i am looking at my bill right now, and i see a spot in here for energy and transmission services, and i was always told that that pays for the upkeep of the grid. the second point is, how do we

address protectionism that we are giving to these old coal-fired utilities? i.e., in ohio here, we have pretty near outlawed any new wind installations. solar is basically illegal in arizona and florida. we got this protectionism that is going on state by state to protect these old energy grids. please address a little bit -- you did mention it -- but the distributed energy systems. host: yeah, we got it, al. guest: yeah, right, the history of this industry is integrated local monopolies, and utilities in this country are very largely granted local monopolies and they are regulated as a result by the states.

their resources -- the cost of their resources are recovered on your bill over time. new investments aren't necessarily recovered in the same timely way. a lot of people have to take risks and put up front money out there to build those new resources. i don't know whether in the case of ohio that old plants are being protected, but certainly the epa's new clean power plan is going to put some of those at risk if they can't be made more efficient and less polluting. i think that the caller's

frustration with the disparate nature of regulation around the country, that there are lots of different regulatory regimes and they don't all add up to a very smooth system is an appropriate concern. the ferc is trying to focus at least at the wholesale level, the bulk power level, trying to focus states on regional markets and regional planning and allocation of these costs of new facilities on a regional basis, and maybe even an interregional basis. and having bigger markets with more flexibility and access to markets will encourage the kind of renewable energy i think you

are talking about. host: let's get in a phone call for you, democratic caller. caller: thank you, greta. mr. hoecker, the revolution was fostered with the production of coal. you want to see what happens to an area that is solely dependent on the production of coal, come to southern west virginia. our streams -- you can't eat fish from any of these streams. they have destroyed approximately 2 million acres of pristine mountains that contain beautiful hardwoods. and we also have power plants. we have a power plant rat next door in southern west virginia. it is a coal burner. it has been online since 1967.

it has never had a scrubber. we are downwind from all of that. not only do we suffer from the effects of coal, now we don't have any jobs because the easy coal is gone and west virginia's electric bills have increased over 60% in the last three years even though the cost of coal has dropped over 100%. less than three years ago, coal was selling on the open market for approximately $70 to $110 a ton and now it is somewhere from $40 to $60 a ton. host: ok, we will leave it there, running out of time. guest: west virginians are caught in a real squeeze, both in terms of their livelihood and their basic resource, which is cool. development of renewable energy, wind in particular, in west virginia is not large enough to compensate for that.

it is important that there be some other economic development options. if coal continues to suffer, we don't find a way to burn coal more cleanly, and we've been working at that for a long time -- when i say "we," i mean the u.s. department of energy and others who have been working on to try to improve coal's performance. but if that doesn't happen sufficiently, the market for fossil fuels, coal in particular, will continue to decline. that puts west virginia and kentucky and even some of the great plains states like wyoming and montana in a very difficult position. i am sure that a lot of people in congress will be thinking

over time about how to deal with that. host: appreciate the conversation this morning. guest: my pleasure. >> tomorrow morning, david price of north carolina on funding the government passed thursday when the current funding expires. collins on tomorrow's hearing on the health care law. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern, with phone calls, tweets, and facebook comments. testifyinguber is tomorrow. last month the videos emerged online showing him making controversial comments on how the bill was passed. he will be in front of the house oversight committee along with vennern ta

tomorrow morning. tomorrow afternoon, john kerry testifies before the senate foreign relations committee about combating isis and whether congress needs to pass a real a resolution. wednesday, the house select committee on benghazi hears from starr, 10:00 a.m. eastern and on c-span3. here are a few of the comments we received. and i want to0's, complement c-span on being able to bring together to bank different ideologies like they did this morning from that cato institute and immigration policy center. i think you need more programming that way among who conduct

themselves with a very simple time. and i applaud you for that. ideology can be overcome to reach a common ground come and i think that there should be more programming to that effect. thank you very much for c-span. i listen to c-span pretty much on a daily, regular basis. i find it to be very informative. i take a good look at all i different politicians so citizens can understand exactly who we elect and what is being done in congress because it seems to be that congress is undecided were always fighting. it is important citizens have an outlet for them to see the proceedings they go on. so i appreciate c-span, and regardless whether or not it is popular with mainstream culture, i want them to know that they people, ire young

am 18, and i watch c-span on a regular basis to make sure i understand what is happening in my country, as i truly do care. thank you. >> american history tour, starting with the battle of the little bighorn, i just watched it in its entirety. it is priceless. around the world do not understand their and sounds, but if they watch american history, they can see themselves in america why we are such a great and wonderful nation of all the peoples of the world. thank you. know about to let us the programs you are watching. us, or you can send us a tweet. the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us

on twitter. prince william and his wife u.s.arrived in the yesterday. he visited president obama in the oval office. >> [indiscernible] >> thank you very much, everybody. >> after their meeting, prince william attended an anticorruption conference at the world bank where he spoke about illegal wildlife trading. also today at the white house, press secretary josh earnest told reporters the president does not regret ordering a mission to rescue an american hostage in yemen. american hostage was executed along with a south african hostage. the briefing touched on the upcoming senate report about the

race relations in the u.s. in the wake of recent shootings of unarmed like men. -- black men. >> good afternoon, everybody. as all of you know, we had an unexpectedly busy saturday afternoon here with the president's trip to walter reed. unfortunately, it was after a lid had been called, but our friends here and then bloomberg stepped in. michael, we are very grateful for that service. it was a significant assistance to your friends in the press corps. as a small token of gratitude, i like to invite you to ask the first question today.

trying to do something nice. trying to do something nice, we are happy to repay. >> let me ask you, obviously, the key question today is we are expecting the cia report to come out this week. how well prepared does the president think u.s. embassies and for the potential reaction? >> we have heard from the committee that they intend to release the report tomorrow. the timing of the release is something that has always been up to the committee. it's a decision they have made. the administration has been, for months, preparing for the release of this report. there are some indications that the release of the report could lead to a greater risk that is posed to u.s. facilities and individuals around the world, so

the administration has taken prudent steps to ensure the proper security precautions are in place at u.s. cities around the globe. the administration supports the release of this classified summary of the report. the president, on his first or second day in office, took the steps using executive action to put an end to the tactics that are described in the report, and the president believes on principle it is important to release that reports so people around the world and people here at home understand exactly what transpired. limitsre going to be what is going to be said given the classified nature of the program. the cause of the scrupulous work of the committee and the administration and the intelligence community in particular, we have this class of -- declassified as much of

the report as we can. we want to be sure that we can release it, be transparent about it, and be clear about what american values are not, and to be clear that something like this should never happen again. >> potentially a related subject, eric holder put out a report on profiling. does the president feel these guidelines on racial profiling should also be followed ultimately by state and local police agencies? if he feels that is a good idea, what steps does he want to take to forward that goal? >> mike, you are right, the department of justice put out new rules today that will enhance the civil rights protections above and beyond what is otherwise required by the u.s. constitution and that existing federal law.

these standards will apply to federal law enforcement officers, and we certainly welcome the decision made by any local law enforcement to apply these policies at the state and local level as well. we would certainly welcome that kind of development. this is a policy that the attorney general has been working on for quite some time now and it's something that was done in close consultation with attorneys at the department of justice as well as law enforcement officials all across the federal government. it does reflect a significant enhancement of protections for all americans in a way that will not have any impact on the ability of these federal law enforcement officers to do the important work necessary to keep the american people safe. >> back to the torture report, the white house put a statement out on friday that said

secretary kerry had called senator feinstein to share information he thought was pertinent. if the president wants the report to be released this week, why didn't he tell secretary kerry not to make that phone call? >> i will read from the readout from the state department and they made clear that he strongly supports, as the president does, supports the release of this declassified version of the summary of the report, for the same value-based reasons that the president does, which is we should be as transparent as we can about what transpired and to allow the american people and people around the world to examine what occurred and to be just as clear and transparent about what american values are. the president and the secretary share the view that the release of the report is important for that purpose. >> then what was the purpose of the phone call, as it relates to

the timing of the release? secretary kerry called the president to say that he would make a phone call. certainly the white house had information about the purpose of the call. >> i will allow secretary kerry to explain why he made the phone call. that is included in the readout that the state department issued over the weekend. there are two unmistakable principles here. the administration has taken the necessary precautions, because of the potential that exists, that the release of the report could have an impact on the security situation at u.s. facilities around the globe. at the same time, we have taken the necessary precautions and done what is prudent to ensure facilities and our personnel are safe. we also want to make sure that is very important information is communicated because of the need to be clear about our values and clear about the fact that what transpired should not occur

again. >> on the raid in yemen this weekend, the head of the group released a picture [inaudible] kept the yemeni government apprised of its association with aqap. two weeks ago there was an exchange of information in which american officials were present. i know some officials have said that americans were not sure if there was any release. [inaudible] >> the united states had no information there were private negotiations underway -- >> [inaudible] >> that is the information i have. that said, we mourn the death of him in a way that we mourn the death of mr. summers. the thoughts and prayers of

everybody here at the white house are with this summer's family particularly with the terrible loss of their son. he was an innocent individual who was murdered by aqap militants. the president, over the last several weeks, ordered two special operations raids to try to secure his rescue. unfortunately, while those raids were carried out flawlessly, even under very significant time constraints, mr. summers was not successfully rescued. but it should be a clear and unmistakable signal to the militants in yemen and to militants around the world that the united states and president obama will not tolerate the unjustified detention and hostage-taking of american citizens and we will expend significant resources to secure the release of those individuals. >> back to the information, this aid group says there was an exchange of information about

the private negotiations that happened two weeks ago in yemen. american officials and yemeni government officials were present. are you saying that did not happen? >> all i can tell you is the u.s. did not have information about the private negotiations that were underway to secure the elease. >> do you have any update on that review? >> this was part of an interagency review. there are a lot of agencies who are involved in working to secure the release of american hostages held around the world. there is a significant intelligence component, a law enforcement component, a diplomatic component. so each of these agencies has some work that's involved, and the president asked for a review to see if there were some steps we could take to better integrate those efforts,

to make them more efficient and effective, and also to ease the burden, the significant burden that is on families who are in these terrible and unthinkable situation of having a loved one that's being held hostage. that review is under way. i don't have an update at this time, but i would anticipate when we have made -- when we have concluded the review, we will have more to say about it. >> some family members are somers are omplaining about any second thoughts about the wisdom of carrying out these rescue attempts, and going forward, will you do more of these? >> the president does not at all regret ordering this mission to try to rescue mr. somers. there are a few reasons for that. first is, as we saw from the video, it is apparent that these militants were planning to kill mr. somers on saturday,

and that's why this raid was executed on very short notice on friday night. there was a very limited window for action. that is a testament, more than anything else, i think, to the bravery and skill of our men and women in uniform who, for like i said for the second time in a few weeks, put their lives on the line in a dangerous country in a very dangerous mission to try to secure the rescue of mr. somers. while our hearts are filled ith sorrow for the somers family, we are also feeling a lot of gratitude to were those men and women in uniform who risked their lives to try to secure his release. as i mentioned earlier in response to julie's question, this should be taken by militants around the world as a clear sign of this president's resolve to do everything ossible to rescue americans at

-- who are being held hostage anywhere around the globe. militants or extremist organizations that decide to take the risk of taking an american hostage are put on notice today. >> and just one other thing. reports about ron leaving i think next march. does this feel like you have a good handle on the ebola crisis that he's able to leave? >> he is planning to leave because he originally came onboard in a status described as a special government employee. that is what allows individuals to serve the government or 130 days. his 130 days will be up at the beginning of march. at that time he's said he'll return to the private sector. there is no that we have made substantial progress against ebola since he came onboard. we have made substantial progress in leveraging u.s. resources in west africa to stop this evil outbreak in its -- stop this ebola outbreak in

its tracks. most of those efforts have been often treated in liberia. the statistics there indicate we have made substantial progress. there's still more important work that needs to be done and we are still -- we still haven't achieved our goal of stopping this outbreak in its tracks, but we have made substantial progress. the statistics about the spread of this disease in that country bear that out. we have also made important progress in enhancing the readiness of medical facilities here at home. this is included in the fact sheet that we put out last week in association with the president's visit to the n.i.h. when he came onboard there were only three medical facilities in the u.s. that were prepped to treat and ebola patient safely. that number is now up to 35 hospitals nationwide. that is a testament to the efforts that mr. klain has undertaken to integrate the response from a variety of agencies to

ensure that we are focused on these goals. we certainly thank them for the work that he has done. >> when he leaves, will there be another ebola coordinator? >> that is something we will have to evaluate. -- evaluate next year. the reason he was brought on board, the president believed it was important to have one person who could dedicate full time and believe me, he's worked more than pull time in the time that he's been here -- that could dedicate 100% of their energy to this specific challenge. there is no question we have made substantial progress in putting in place processes to ntegrate our response. precise ow a more process for individuals that have traveled to west africa and are now attempted to enter the country. we have a solid routine. there is a larger footprint on

the ground in west africa with defense personnel and usaid and others and they are working together more smoothly. the question that we will have to answer is, even if we have not accomplished the goal of stopping the ebola outbreak in its tracks in west africa -- and i don't anticipate that we will reach that goal -- the question is will it require one individual to dedicate 100% of their time to get to -- time to focus on this to get toward that goal? it is an open question still. that is something that we will discuss in the early run-up to early march next year. john. >> coming back to this john kerry's phone call to dianne feinstein. he was clearly expressing concerns about the timing, as we heard from the state department of the release of this report. did the president or does the president share kerry's concerns about the timing of the release of this>> we have been candid from the report?

beginning that we believe it's the committee's decision to determine the release of the report. that is why the administration has been at work for months now to prepare for this eventual release, that there have been concerns that were raised, that were validated by the intelligence community that indicate the release of the report may have any impact on the security situation at u.s. facilities around the world. that is why this administration has been working for months to plan for this day, and to ensure that the prudent steps are taken to protect american personnel and american facilities around the globe. >> on the central question here, did these tactics, these so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, produce any actual intelligence? the committee believes they didn't. the c.i.a. believes they did. where does the white house

stand on the question? does the white house believe that these tactics produced any actionable intelligence? >> well, the -- this is something that the -- the president felt it was important for us, for the american people, to have a clear, unvarnished look, as clear look as possible into this classified program, about what actually transpired. that is why the president believes the release of this report is so important. i haven't read the report. it's unclear whether or not the committee has taken up the question that you are raising, but certainly they will have something important to say about it. >> i understand, obviously, hat the president is very much opposed to these tactics, morally reprehensible, not something the united states should be doing. but what does the white house believe on the question, did they produce actionable intelligence? yes or no? you could think the tactics shouldn't have been done, but did they -- were they effective

in any way? >> john, as you pointed out, there are a variety of views across the federal government about the effectiveness. there may be an opportunity for you to ask him that. what i can tell you is the president believes that the use of those tactics was unwarranted, they were inconsistent with our values, and did not make us safer. that is a different question than you are asking. let me finish. did they unearth useful national intelligence information? i think the president would say, and this is clear from his decision to outlaw these techniques, that even if they did, that it wasn't worth it and it did not enhance the security of the united states of america. >> let me try one more specific one that you have talked about over the last few years. osama bin laden.

were these techniques crucial to getting the intelligence that led to the killing of osama bin laden? >> well, john, it has been litigated quite extensively. >> well, it's -- >> these are, of course, complicated issues and they're worthy of discussion. this is something that was talked about quite a bit in the days immediately following the successful raid against osama bin laden. these were issues that were raised and discussed extensively in conjunction with the release of "zero dark 30." i believe a little over a year ago now. and there were a variety of views about whether or not information that was gleaned from enhanced interrogation techniques led to the eventual capture of osama bin laden. what we have been clear about,

and what the president has been clear about, is that he does not believe that the use of these enhanced interrogation techniques is justified. he does not believe that makes s safer, he does not believe it's in the core national security interest. you are asking a very difficult question and there are a variety of views on it. the president's view is wherever you come down on this equation, yes, it yielded information that was helpful, yes, it yielded information that was crucial, or no it did not yield any helpful information -- the president believes that regardless to the answer of the question, the use of these techniques was not worth it because of the harm that was done to our national values and the sense of what it is that we believe in as americans. >> is there any daylight between the president and the c.i.a. on the question of whether or not they yielded any

critical intelligence? >> i think it is apparent from some of the anonymous sources that you and others have had at the c.i.a. that there are people that have a variety of opinions on this. with all due respect to those, i think the views of the commander in chief are the ones that are most important. >> and you include the c.i.a. director on that? i'm not talking about anonymous sources. is there any daylight between the president and the c.i.a.? >> you would have to ask the director about that. in ink he's been asked that the context of congressional testimony. i don't have that directly in front of me but i know there was extensive discussion about this. >> he asked about the president having concerns about the timing. i know that he strongly supports the release of the report but was he or is he concerned about releasing it now?

>> michelle, there has been concerns that have been expressed by members of the intelligence community and others about the risk that the release of the report may pose to u.s. facilities and people around the globe. that is why the administration, for months now, has been prepared for this day, the day that the report is released. >> does the president share those concerns? >> let me say it this way. the president wants to make sure that we are doing what is necessary to protect our men and women who are serving this country, either military or in the diplomatic corps, and he believes we should take all the steps necessary to do exactly that. and that's why we didn't just start planning to figure out what was necessary to safeguard these facilities, but rather this is something we've been focused on for a number of months now. the other context, i guess this would be an implicit question, an implicit point in your

question is, well, when would be a good time to release this report? it's difficult to imagine one. particularly because of the painful details that will be included but, again, the president believesthat it is important for us to be as transparent as we possibly can be about what exactly transpired, so we can be clear to the american public and to people around the world that something like this should not happen again. >> on the yemen rescue attempt, we heard criticism from the south african family. it would be interesting to hear ome of that criticism from the american's family saying they wish they could have been consulted on this. we know the review is under way on how families are consulted, but is there any family interaction, coordination, is that possible, move forward? >> part of the review the president has ordered does

involve the communication between the federal government and the families that are in this terrible situation. as i mentioned earlier, our thoughts and prayers are with the somersit is difficult to comprehend family. the level of grief they must be feeling today. -- thoughts and prayers are with the somers family. it is difficult to comprehend the level of grief they must be feeling today. what i can tell you is, particularly this raid that occurred on friday, took place in a very short time frame, that the amount of time that elapsed between the intelligence being developed, the concept of operations being put together and approved by the secretary of defense and then its approval by the president, was very short. the reason for that is because aqap had made a promise to carry out the execution on saturday. the only practical time to carry this raid out would have been friday night. and that's why the president acted quickly, that's why our

special operators acted quickly, that's why we worked quickly with the yemen government to ensure this was well-coordinated, and that's what was necessary in order to try to save his life. >> i know we do not want to talk about hypotheticals, but if in this case there was a longer time frame to work with, is consultation with the family that would be considered -- something that would be considered? >> it's difficult to say because each situation is different and each situation is unique. there are significant operational concerns carrying out a raid like this, that the element of surprise is critically important, not just for the success of the operation but for the safety of the operators. the amount of information that can be shared with anybody is very limited. i certainly -- that would have an impact on what is communicated to the family but is not necessarily determinative in terms of what

is eventually communicated to them. >> i guess what i'm getting at, is that something that is being looked at as the review is ongoing, that there could be some sort of consultation there? >> as a general matter, communication between the federal government and the family in this terrible situation is being carefully considered as part of this review. >> over the weekend, how long has the president been suffering from a sore throat? >> my understanding is something that has been -- he's had persistent problems over the last couple of weeks and the president got it checked out at the white house on saturday morning and as you saw from the statement that dr. jackson issued on saturday, as a matter of prudence and as matter of convenience, not urgency, the follow-up diagnostic test was done saturday afternoon. the president has a busy schedule for the next couple of weeks, including the weekends,

and he had an open saturday afternoon. so that's why the decision was made rather hastily to go to walter reed to get this checked out. as you saw from the presidents -- president's remarks here at the white house last night honoring the recipients of the kennedy center award, the president's feeling pretty good. >> was there ever talk with counsel about transfer of power if more trests were needed that day? >> it's my understanding there is a pretty standard playbook for how these things work. there are considerations raised if the president, under any circumstances, has to undergo general anesthesia, but that was not necessary in this case. >> there are reports indicating that 2,000 marines have been deployed in the middle east. what embassies or your allies, actually -- the embassy in egypt. would e any country that

have more potential trouble, whether in egypt or yemen, because of this report? >> i will not in the position to detail the security precautions taken by u.s. facilities around the world. the first is, that probably wouldn't be a wise security strategy to detail to everybody what we're doing in advance. there are also precautions being taken any substantial number of facilities around the globe. it also would be difficult for me to stand here and described all of them. if you have specific questions about specific countries, i would encourage you to check with the state department or the department of defense. they may have more information to share with you. the thing i want to stress -- there are two things i want to stress. the first is, preparations have been under way for months to prepare for this day. they have been mindful of the fact that this report would someday be released. that is why preparations have been under way for some time. the concerns that have been raised are concerns related to

the potential for violence, potential for an impact on security. this is something we are mindful of and watching, but again, this is in the range of risk and potential, not in the range of certainty. > another controversial policy that's being carried out under the previous administration and has been increased under this administration is the use of drones. many civilians have been killed, they have not been accounted for or compensated. many would argue that this policy has brought on more radicals and jihadist. so what is the difference between the harsh interrogation techniques and drones killing civilians? >> the president gave a pretty detailed speech on this topic about a year and a half ago, here he talked about the desire to try to bring more transparency to some of the counterterrorism programs that

are implemented by the united states. despite a commitment to transparency, there are some limits on what i can say from ere, but i can tell you, the president does want want to be sure that as we execute the counterterrorism strategy he has outlined, we are mindful of the impact those strategies have to win hearts and minds. that is why one of the core components of our strategy in many of these places, including in iraq, syria, and yemen, is close consultation and cooperation with local government. and making sure that it is local forces taking the fight on the ground to these extremist elements. that the administration is working closely, where possible, with the central government in these areas to make sure that we have the buy-in of elected leaders in these countries so we can ensure that the local

population understands that they understand that these extremist that we are going after are the same extremists that have wreaked havoc in their community. you talk about an organization like isil, isil, despite their high profile and terrible execution of americans, have killed far more iraqis than americans. the same dynamic is at play with aqap. that are the violence they have brought against other yemenis and muslims far outnumbers the violence they have carried out against american citizens. that is why it's important for people to understand that we we are going to work closely with local governments and local forces to take on a fight against a common enemy. >> the problem is that these governments are discredited among their own people and you're a democracy and that is different. >> that is true and that is why we want to work as much as we can with local forces and local governments. there are limits to this.

it is true, even if these governments are discredited, that the local population does understand that these extremist elements are carrying out acts of violence against people in their community. i would acknowledge that there may be some limits in our ability to communicate that message and for that message to get through about who our arget is here, but there are enormous precautions taken by our men and women in the military and by our intelligence community to eliminate, or at a minimum, minimize, the impact on civilian populations in this area. that is something that we try to be very mindful and we're careful about. that is an extensive part of this planning. rick tell you that as these terrorist groups carry out attacks against westerners, they are not concerned about the impact of the violence on locals when there are -- you know, there are car bombs

detonated or other acts of violence carried out that are targeted at westerners, they often have a terrible impact on the local population in terms of destruction of property or even the killing of innocent eople. and that indiscriminate killing is the reason that even these extremist groups are so marginalized in many of these areas. april? >> josh, i want to ask you a couple of questions on racial profiling and this interview today. could you talk about why it's so important to target young people with the president's message on race? >> april, you talking about the interview that the president and park from last friday, some excerpts released over the weekend. i understand the entirety of the interview will be broadcast later today. the president conducted the interview in conjunction with the program because we certainly have seen a lot of young people, particularly

young people of color, be pretty outspoken in their concerns about the lack of trust that exists between many of law enforcement communities and local officials and the communities they are sworn to serve and protect. and the president wanted to communicate to them a few things. he wanted to let them know that, a, their voice had been heard. he wanted to encourage them to continue to express their views and their concerns peacefully, which the vast majority of those who have protested have done. and the president wanted them to know these are issues that are legitimate to race and that these are issues that president of the united states he himself take seriously and he wanted to talk about some steps he put forward to try to address some of these issues. the last thing is the president also wanted to make clear he shared their assessment that these are the kind of policies and situations that are not

going to change overnight, that it's not one demonstration or one speech or one presidential trip that are going to cause the relationship between local law enforcement and some of the communities they serve -- in some of the communities they serve to be transformed. this will require a set, steady, sustained work. that's what the president is committed to. we've seen the attorney general committed to this. all of this is an important part of the message that the president wanted to deliver. we certainly hope that will get through when the interview is broadcast. i encourage you to evaluate yourself when it airs. >> i will. but the dynamic has changed. it changed this week. it changed last evening into this morning saying young people of color have been pretty outspoken on this issue. in berkeley, california, the vast majority of those who are protesting, very -- some of them have agitated and violently are white people.

they are not people of color. what do you say to those people and to the white people, white young people around the nation who feel that black lives matter? >> well, i think the message that president has for them is the same and i think it is indicative of the progress that we've made in this country, that the vast majority of protessors, black and white and hispanic and -- protestors, black and white and hispanic and asian were peaceful and that there was a strong show of support about the value of black lives, as you described it, about the importance of confronting these issues that plague so many communities across the country. i also think there would be a strong area of agreement, certainly not unanimous, but strong agreement about how bravely so many of our men and in local law m,

enforcement, serve. that these are individuals who put on a uniform and walk out the door prepared to put their life on the line to protect citizens in the community that they're sworn to serve. d i think there is broadly appreciation and high regard for individuals who are willing to take that risk for the communities that they serve. that, too, is an assessment that i think is shared broadly. again, i think it's a testament to the substantial progress that's been made on this equation in this country. >> in the black community, there's been conversation upon conversation upon conversation when it comes to issues of race. within the community it's always been said that maybe it needs to permeate into the other areas of this society, meaning white america. we feel we've heard it. what about a conversation with white america, specifically when it comes to this kind of situation? >> well, april, my assumption is that reason that this is an

issue that's been so carefully and closely covered by newspapers and television outlets and even radio outlets is that this is something that all americans care about. this is not just the subject of some concern to the african-american community, but this is something that all americans care about. the president laid down that value i think pretty clearly where he said something along the lines of, if there is one person in america whose rights are being trampled, that's something that all americans should be concerned about. i think that reflects the values that we hold dear in this country. i think that's something -- again, that was an indication that while more progress remains, there is substantial progress that we've already made in terms of trying to bring this country together. >> what can we expect on this continuation from this administration on curbing racial profiling, particularly

after we've seen these incidents to include trayvon martin, eric garner, ferguson? what do you think we will see with with the cushing of racial profiling? -- curbing of racial profiling? >> the policy that was announced today by the department of justice, you'll see that this is a policy that is in the weeks and months ahead will be implemented and law enforcement agencies across the federal government, that will come alongside additional enhanced training for local law enforcement to make sure they are properly enforcing this policy. you'll continue to see the federal government encourage local law enforcement agencies to consider putting in place a policy like the one that's in place for the federal government. you will also see the president and this administration follow up on the actions that were initiated at the beginning of last week on this matter, so ou'll recall that chief ramsey

from the philadelphia police department and ms. robinson, a former department of justice official, are conducting this review to evaluate the practices that are in place in local law enforcements in communities across america, helping them communicate to other law enforcement agencies across the country. you're also going to see the continued movement on this report related to law enforcement equipment that was conducted by o.m.b., that they're supposed to come back with some specific, tangible recommendations in the next 120 days about how to substantially improve the training with this equipment. and you'll see the continued application of the police commission where he was clear that additional resources should be provided to local law enforcement to make sure they had access to the training and information that they needed to better equip their officers to better serve and protect the communities that they're sworn to serve and protect. so there's a lot of work that remains to be done, and the

president is determined to not allow this one story to fade from the headlines but for the federal government to demonstrate a commitment to follow through. >> [inaudible] this cushing racial profiling? >> i encourage you to look at the department of justice. they may have more insight the reaction to the policy announcement. it's only been announced a few hours ago. i don't think it will be a long list. it's something we'll be interested in. >> and the communication? >> talk to the department of justice about that. ed? >> following on that. [inaudible] a poll say 53% of interactions between white and black communities have deteriorated since the president took office, that would seem to suggest the opposite. >> i think any fair-minded look at history would indicate the situation that is facing the american people right now is

far better than it used to be. that even 40 or 50 years ago, we saw a situation where local law enforcement officials were systematically applying the law that would trample the civil rights of minority members of the community. >> this poll is about today and saying that while the country, yes, has made progress, a majority of americans believe the relationship has detear or ated? >> -- at the tear yor ated. -- deteriorated. >> and if you look at the current state of race relations in this country would acknowledge two things. one is that we've made tremendous progress, but they also readily acknowledge there is more important work to be done and this is work that president is committed to. >> jump to another topic. on the president's health. some medical experts seem surprised that he got a c.t. scan and you said and statement over the weekend said it was convenient. was there something else

doctors saw? did they see any kind of a growth or concern about a growth or something that most people with a sore throat don't get a c.t. scan? >> those people aren't the president of the united states. >> most people are not. vast majority. [laughter] >> yeah. it's hard for me to speak to the sort of standard protocol for treating a sore throat. i'm not a medical professional. i'll tell you what dr. jackson said which was there was an evaluation that was conducted here at the white house by an ear, knows and throat specialist of this -- nose and throat specialist of this persistent sore throat that president has been feeling. and based on that examination, both dr. jackson and the specialist felt it would be prudent for the president to get an additional dying notic test that would include this c.t. scan. that was -- diagnostic test that would include this c.t.

scan. we don't have the equipment at the white house. the president made the decision, because he had an opening on his schedule, to get that done right away. at the review of that c.t. scan indicated that -- it came back normal. that's something that dr. jackson concluded, meant that sore throat was being -- was consistent with some symptoms of acid reflux and that president would be treated accordingly. >> israel. on friday you seemed to leave the door open with the possibility of the u.s. having sanctions against israel. i understand the state department is saying that door has closed. did something change over the weekend? >> again, ed, i can't talk to detail about any sort of private conversations that took place here at the white house or anywhere else in the administration. i can tell you definitively that reports that white house might be contemplating sanctions against israel are completely unfounded and without merit. now, what hasn't changed are the significant concerns that we have with the israelis continuing to pursue settlement

activity. we believe those actions are counterproductive, that they don't sort of facilitate the kind of trust we believe is necessary for both sides to try to hammer out their differences in a way that is consistent with the national security concerns of the israeli people and with the broader aspirations of the palestinian people. so we have made our views known very clearly about our frustration with the government of israel continuing to pursue these kind of settlement activities and that's something we'll continue to criticize and be clear about. again, only because we believe it is so clearly in the interests of both the israeli people and the palestinian people for both sides to sit down at the negotiating team and try to clear those differences out and pursuing settlement activity is counterproductive to that ultimate goal. >> on the report -- former president bush made some comments over the weekend to cnn expressing concern, has

president obama spoken at all in recent weeks, recent months as this report was about to come out to coordinate at all between the two presidents given the sensitivity of this, a, and b, does the current president share the former president's concerns at all that some intelligence officials might -- there might be an impression they're being thrown under the bus here? >> well, ed, let me say as a general matter that the -- we don't often -- we don't detail every conversation that president has with former presidents. so i can't speak to any conversations that may or may not have occurred between president obama and president bush on this issue or any other. but i can say as a general matter the president does believe, like president bush expressed, i believe, that the vast majority of the men and women in our intelligence community are true patriots. these are individuals who in very dedicated fashion used their skill and expertise and

in some -- and in some occasions put themselves at great risk to try to protect the united states of america. those are individuals who have the enduring gratitude of this president and the american people because the actions that they take on a daily basis, even when nobody's paying attention, contribute significantly to the safety and security of the united states of america and her people. major. >> josh, over the weekend senate democrats spent a good deal of time talking among themselves about whether this was the right time to release that report and there were many that believed it is not a right time. it's a very close call. there are a number of objective reasons why, as you just hinted a moment ago, never a good time to release this report. from the white house's perspective, what is the deciding factor that makes this the right time? other than the political calendar, which suggests if senate republicans were in charge of the intelligence committee this report would not see the light of the day? >> the right time will be determined by members of the

senate select committee on intelligence. that is as it should be. it's their report and they should make the decision about the appropriate time for releasing it. >> the president is chiefly responsible for articulating and defending the security of this country, its embassies and its personnel. he has to have an opinion on this. he can't be a simple, casual bystander leaving to the leaving it to the committee. >> i don't want to give you the impression there hasn't been any guidance. there has been communication between the white house and the committee. that's something they have to decide -- that members of the committee have to decide for themselves. it's their report and as you reminded me on a number of occasions, despite the president's priority that he places on the safety and security of the united states of america, the legislative branch is a separate branch of government. and they have oversight responsibilities over the intelligence committee and over the executive branch.

they are free to exercise that oversight authority without inappropriate interference from the administration. that said, this white house, the president and obviously the chief of staff have gone to great lengths to try to facilitate the kinds of productive conversations between the intelligence committee and the intelligence community about the release of this report. and that's been painstaking work. but ultimately this administration and this president and this white house have been engaged in that effort because we believe so strongly in the value of actually following through on the release of this report. it says something critically important about our values as a country and that even though it may pose some risk to the security situation at diplomatic facilities around the globe, we can take prudent steps to protect those

facilities and that it is critically important, again, consistent with the values of this country, for the declassified version of the summary of this report to be released. >> one of the underlying lessons of the report will be a dangerous a bureaucracy runs amuck, if there is no line of communication to the top to the president of the united states, is that something you expect to be a gain in the release of this report, a c.i.a. that's chastised a bit of the interpretation of executive branch orders and how to carry them out? >> we'll see what the report eventually says. i can tell you the president strongly endorses the work that director brennan has been conducting as he's led that agency. and the president's got complete confidence to lead -- we'll see d to what the report says.

i know the message the president wants to send, he has complete confidence in the director, because of the excellent work that he does on a day-to-day basis and to express his gratitude to the men and women of the c.i.a. who, again, on a daily basis are serving their country often without any recognition at all but doing the kind of work that's critical to protecting the american people. >> it was a busy weekend on the hill in another respect. negotiations going on several pieces of legislation. i suspect you aren't going to get into great detail but can you give us an overall sense of the trajectory of things and are you more confident than you were, let's say, thursday or friday, about the c.r. being resolved narge nationally if not all on your terms and the national defense authorization act, getting done by the end of this week in terms that may not be perfect but acceptable? >> i can tell you i have in the

grand scale of things have not worked at the white house that long but i've worked here long enough to know that i shouldn't be making predictions about the outcome of the legislative process. >> there was a lot of conversations going back and forth. [inaudible] >> i guess what i would tell you, you would have a better sense of that than i would based on the conversations that you have with members of congress and their staff. what i can tell you is we've been really clear about how we believe those processes should be resolved, but i'm not going to predict how they're going to be resolved. >> ok. one last thing. can you tell us why antonio weiss is the best nominee for this position at the department f trishry, undersecretary of finance. -- treasury, undersecretary of finance. he doesn't have any particular interest in the underlying issues if confirmed and that it's unwise and a bit rankly to see that his business would

give him nearly $21 billion in compensation for taking a government position after eaving that particular firm. he's a high qualified nominee. he knows about the issues. being undersecretary of the treasury for domestic finance. he's been in the field of finance for 20 years. in that time he's overseen numerous major financial transactions across a variety of industries that have driven significant interest inside the united states. this is somebody who has a very good knowledge of the way that financial markets work and that is critically important when you're asking somebody to take on a position in the federal government that has such a significant bearing on those markets. i can tell you that other reason that we believe strongly that mr. weiss should be confirmed with bipartisan

support is that he is somebody who has spent some time thinking about some of the issues that president believes are critically important. for example, in 2012, mr. weiss co-authored a report called "reforming our tax system and reducing our deficit." mr. weiss shares the president's view that we would benefit significantly from reforming and simplifying our tax code and implementing policies that help boost economic growth while supporting our middle class. that includes, by the way, eliminating the inversion loophole that allows some large corporations to renounce -- essentially renounce its citizenship just so they can get away without paying their fair share of taxes. mr. weiss has a lot of experience, has knowledge that would be critically important to the successful conduct of the responsibilities of somebody who's going to serve as the undersecretary of the treasury for domestic finance. that's why we're counting on the congress to take quick

action and confirm him in bipartisan fashion. >> anything troubling from this administration about the [inaudible] i mean, those compensation packages are designed to keep people in the private sector so they don't jump from company to company. now he's coming into government, he would not be regulating -- i grant you that. in the whole scheme of things, doesn't it seem a little, if not outrageous, odd? >> well, again, this is what i'll say about this. before any nominee takes a position in government, they have to go through a review by the office of government ethics. this is an independent agency that conders exactly this question. they have a lot of expertise in doing so. so if they have any concerns about the ethics of the compensation arrangement that you've described, i'm sure they'll make them known. it's in their interest to do so. but as far as i know, they haven't. >> right. >> given that you said, josh, about the president's stand of

the torture report, we should be as transparent as we possibly can. and that people may have a different view of what would constitute transparency. the intelligence committee may differ from members of the intelligence community. for example, what can you tell us about the redax process ward that end of giving -- redaction process toward that end of giving the people access? >> well, that would necessarily limit how much of this information can be disclosed publicly. >> only classified information that would be withheld? >> well, i don't know the answer to that question. what i do know is that administration has been working closely with both members of the committee and the intelligence community to redact as much of that -- of that report as possible. i'm sorry. to declassify as much of that report as possible.

[laughter] i can tell you that the -- i've been up here a little while, as you can tell. the administration has been working very scrupulously with members of the committee and with the intelligence community to declassify as much of that report as possible. and that -- the reason for that is simply because that will further the goal that president himself has laid out which is he does believe it's important for the intelligence community and for the committee and for the federal government to be as transparent as possible with the american people and with the world about what exactly transpired, specifically so that we can make sure it never happens again. so i will -- i don't contest that there -- as with so many of these issues, that there are a variety of opinions. but when it comes down to the administration's view, specifically the white house's view, our view is that as much of this report as possible should be declassified, now, we, of course, need to make sure we're taking the necessary

precautions to ensure that safety of our men and women in the intelligence community -- and we certainly wouldn't want to release anything that would put them at risk, but absent that, we believe as much of the information, as much of the story as possible should be told so that the american people can have a clear assessment of what exactly happened and we can be crystal clear what our values are as americans and be sure that regardless of circumstance that that never happens again. >> when you say that white house wanted more of this made available to the public that it's being made available? >> what i can say is the white house is satisfied that the concerns -- the agreement that's been reached between the committee and the intelligence community both take into account the need to protect our men and women in the intelligence community but also to be as transparent as we possibly can with the american people about what exactly

happened. >> it would not be correct to characterize that the white house would [inaudible] >> i think i would say that the white house has, from the beginning, pushing for the release of this report and pushing for as much content as possible to be released. now, given the classified nature of these programs, there are limits on that, but that has been the posture of the white house from the beginning for years, and that is why the white house has i think been pretty effective in trying to work with both the committee and the intelligence community to resolve their concerns and get this report released and that's why we're gratified that committee has made the decision to release this report tomorrow. >> and on the hostage rescue mission, and we talked about this before about the president's position, the white house position on not paying ransom and yet when you have the combination of situations where there have been hostages who have been successfully freed being paid either governments or by family and

friends who have raised money, and the failed mission, what can you say to families who look at that and say, this is my opportunity to save the life of my loved one? >> well, chris, families who find themselves in this situation are facing a terrible choice, and the kind of pain and anguish that a parent must feel about their son or daughter being held against their will by terrorists as a hostage is unthinkable. and it's difficult to imagine being in a situation like that. and that is why you have seen such significant expressions of sympathy for families that were in that position. that's why you've seen strong support from the federal government for those families and that's also why you've seen the president of the united states expend significant capital and time and energy to try to rescue those individuals. who different rescue raids

ordered in just the last couple weeks to try to secure the safe return of mr. somers. this is something the administration and the president himself is personally invested in. there's no question that we are -- that that kind of a choice that's facing an individual family is gutwrenching. at the same time, as policymakers, it's the responsibility of this administration to lay out policies that are in the best interests of the country and the national -- and the security of every american citizen. and paying ransom to terrorist organizations, essentially financing the ability of these terrorist organizations to carry out other hostage takings is not in the best interest of the united states and it's not in the best interest of our citizens. and, again, that in no way is intended to diminish the difficult choice and the

anguish that so many families must feel. but as a policy matter, there's no doubt that not paying ransom is clearly in the best interest of the safety and security of the american people. >> thank you. go back to racial profiling for a moment. in washington they call them carveouts. airport security, the secret service. libertarians are angry about that. they say there is a big loophole, leaving out hispanic minorities and -- >> mike, you should check with the department of justice on this. it's my understanding with this new guidance would be applied on top of those others what previously been described as carveouts. that there are additional -- higher threshold level in terms of protection, civil liberty protections in place. >> the three areas in mind --

>> there are some narrow exceptions, but they were narrowed by this new guidance and the way that these policies are implemented is focused on making sure we're balancing the need to protect civil liberties of the american people but also trying to protect the american people. this is a dynamic that particularly plays out in securing the transportation sector, that we want to make sure we're protecting the civil liberties of the traveling public but at the same time we need to overlook the transportation system. and there are complicated ways in which we can apply this policy that balances both significant concerns. >> in other words, racial profiling, some element of racial profiling is necessary when it really matters, at airports and to the secret service? >> no. the federal government does not condone racial profiling. that is the policy of the administration. we do not condone racial

profiling, and that is something that's not allowed by law enforcement officers. but what we also have to do is we also have to be in a position where we are allowing law enforcement officials to make some risk-based assessments to balance the protection of the american people with the protection of civil liberties. these are complicated. many of them are dependent on the exact situation that you're talking about, which is why the implementation of this new guidance, as it relates to racial profiling, is accompanied by a significant commitment of funds to ensure that law enforcement officials are getting the training they need to implement this policy. >> thanks, josh. >> carol. >> on the release of the report. given the president feels this strongly, as you said he does, about this being important, should we expect that he will speak publicly once it's released? and generally, what does he see

is his responsibility in terms of his public posture on this given that it's obviously going to show passion and violence on either side of debate? >> carol, the president has made his voice heard insofar as he wants a declassified version of this report. that's something the president long advocated since the earliest days of his administration. he, after all, i believe on the second day of his administration, took the action that was necessary to ensure that these techniques were no longer being carried out. so the president does have strong views about this. he's made those strong views known on previous occasions. i don't anticipate that esident will make a specific statement on this tomorrow, but we'll see if we can find a way to get you some kind of reaction, either a written statement from him or some kind of readout that i may be able to provide. >> also, on the -- there is a

report that administration notified the u.n. that iran has been trying to procure equipment for its heavy reactor . is that something that you can confirm, and if so, if that is the case, doesn't that violate the agreement? >> carol, i haven't seen those reports, so we'll look into it. one of the conditions of the ongoing negotiations between iran and the p-5 plus 1 is that iran not make attempt new investments at the heavy facility out of iraq. so let me refer you to one of my colleagues at the n.a.c. who may be familiar with that report and can better describe what impact that report may have on the baseline agreement that we've discussed. this will be the last one. >> thank you, josh. the president met with the future king of the united kingdom. one of the greatest allies america has traditionally had.

fighting against common enemy. three enemies come to my mind isis, poke today about isil and ebola. has any of those topics come up? >> i was pleased that he lcomed the duke of cambridge and met with vice president biden and dr. biden. they talked about the long relationship between the u.k. and the united states. in addition, the duke of cambridge briefed the president on his initiative to combat the illegal wildlife trade, an issue with the president and this administration are strongly committed. vice president dr. biden talked about global challenges, such as the effort to degrade and destroy isil as well as efforts to support our two countries' wounded warriors through the invictus games, which dr. biden went to in london. i am not sure if the president talked about tonight's basketball game with prince

william. i know that president is certainly envious about the prince's opportunity to take in a game between the nets and lebron james-led cleveland cavaliers. thanks a lot, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up tonight on c-span, world bank president on climate change priorities. en former secretary of state clinton is interviewed about the situation in the middle east. economist gruber discusses his work on the health care law. world bank president jim yong

kim spoke about challenges. his remarks monday came at an event hosted by the council on foreign relations. this is about an hour. >> welcome everyone. good afternoon. we are delighted to be here today at the council on foreign relations where we have the opportunity to discuss with president kim of the world bank the next steps for international climate action. dr. kim became the 12th president of the world bank in 2012 after a career in development and medicine. he served as president of dartmouth college and a number of medical departments and co-founded partners in health, which now operates on four continents. his work has earned him wide recognition. he was awarded the mccarthur's genius fellowship in 2003. he is one of america's 25 best leaders. in 2005 and "time" magazine

named him the 100 most influential person in 2005. he will be discussing climate change. with that, dr. kim. [applause] . >> thank you very much. and i apologize for the delay. the his royal highness, prince of cambridge here and was just across the street talking about crups and we had security issues. i apologize but i'm very glad to be here. first, i would like to thank the council on foreign relations for hosting this event and thank you, mark, for your very kind introduction. it has played an important role in climate change and environmental preservation issues worldwide and your leadership has taken it to even debater heights.

and given the time you spent in the financial world, you will know one of the themes of my talk today, which is that economic policy is the key to mobilizing a coordinated global response to climate change. i can't attend the 20th conference of the parties to the u.n., but i will be watching closely as the delegates set the stage for an agreement to be reached in one year's time in paris that should transform the way we live for generations. at this key moment, i'm pleased to return to the council on foreign relations to share our vision what an agreement would look like. it is a fundamental threat to development in our lifetime. we know if we don't confront climate change, there will be no hope of ending poverty or sharing prosperity. the longer we delay, the higher

the costs will be to do the right thing for our planet and our children. our cities have turned down the heat reports and work on green growth and the list between development and climate made clear that the progress of ending poverty is at risk. last month's points were talked about on the intergovernmental panel on climate change. this unprecedented scientific consensus concludes if we are to stabilize global warming and the international community agrees, we must achieve zero emissions of greenhouse gases before 2100. the international community will have the opportunity to send a clear signal that we, as a global community, are determined to manage our economy to zero emissions before 2100. every country finds itself at a

different point in the development journey. therefore, the pace and rhythm of their emissions reductions and adaptation will vary. nonetheless, we have the opportunity in paris to make clear our collective ambition. that ambition can be for cleaner growth and increased commitment to adapttation. the higher the ambition, the greater demand for programs and projects that will transform economies. it will send a strong message to investors about the demand and possibility of long-term investments and clean energy in transport systems, sustainable agricultural and forestry and new efficient products. paris must be where we make the rallying cry for effective management of local, national and global economies to fight climate change. many observers expect an agreement in paris to be

comprised of a number of essential components. each must reflect an ambition equal to the challenge before us to send a powerful signal to economic actors around the globe. the parties must include binding language that should reinforce our collective ambition and a clear pathway to zero-net emissions before 2100. individual country contributions with policy packages that should address how to use all available fiscal levers to get prices right, increase efficiency and incentivize decarbonization. hree, a financial package that recognizes that climate development funds should be used to innovate financing.

financial flow cannot reach the levels we need in the necessary time frame without some form of network carbon market based on the market's mechanism, taxes and environments we are beginning to see introduced all timely, world and working coalitions of private enterprises, countries, cities, moving forward with where it must be enhanced. unlike treaties in the past, the paris agreement must speak loudly about transformation. let me me say a few words about effective management and what we hope to see of the intended nationally determined contributions that will set out each country's commitment at paris and beyond.

we understand that many clients face huge challenges and many countries will reach their own peek emissions at different moments. managing the economy to ensure that they can, for example, decarbonize the energy sectors over time and having the energy they need for development, nstitutes a challenge no developed country has had to face as it was industrializing. nevertheless, every country can strive to effectively manage its economy and decarbonize and boosting economy. it means strong policy signals that makes clear long-term goals. carbon pricing. and removing subsidies that are harmful including fossil fuel subsidies. all countries should commit to put a price on carbon. it's a necessary if not sufficient step in any journey

to zero-net emissions. it can be discovered by taxes, market mechanisms and whatever mechanism they choose, makes the pollution we don't want more expensive and incentivizes clean production. it can raise revenues and can be used to generate more economic benefits. we can do this moving from taxing the good to taxing the bad. to reduce labor and investment taxes and encourage job creation and economic development and green technologies through research and development subsidies. the example of british columbia is one of the most powerful. it is neutral to the taxpayer. it's not an increase in tax. the government promised household it would not increase the tax rate. taxes on labor, for example, were reduced.

introduced at the height of the financial crisis in 2008, the carbon tax has risen from 10 nadian dollars per ton to 30 canadian dollars per ton. 300 million canadian dollars in personal and business tax cuts. british columbia's g.d.p. has outperformed the rest of canada's introduction of tax. other instruments need to be mobilized to redirect investments toward clean technologies and sectors. stepping up drivers of energy efficiency is an obvious win-win that can deliver benefits. strengthen performance standards can help achieve efficiency gains in buildings, transport and industry. such measures have the potential to reduce greenhouse global gas

emissions by 20. specific efforts are needed to scale up energy. it is at a pace that allow us tower reach carbon neutrality. investment in infrastructure will be required. the electricity grids in many countries can with upgrades achieve much higher rates of efficiency. a huge opportunity in india and renewables can be allowed to be grid connected. just this year, once the appropriate regulatory form and grid development had taken place, the private sector of the world bank group financed the first solar power plant in the phillipines. nd to lock them into

inefficient. removing harmful fuel subsidies is long overdue. there is $500 billion in subsidies that primarily benefit the better off by doing nothing to help the poor and the environment. these funds can be used in health and education or subsidize technology that can reduce emissions. removing subsidies are in the basket of leaders' desk. brazil, indonesia and mexico are showing that shaving out fossil fuel subsidies can benefit the poor. a policy package that includes these components would give credibility and predict that all investors and consumers need to change their choices and behaviors. including these would

demonstrate the commitment of every country to play its part to move to a carbon-free economy and lay the pathway for essential work before they come into effect in 2020. effective management of the economy means finding ways to find waist to invest more. the contributions of countries must address adapttation. governments must implement the policies needed to strengthen resilience and ensure development takes into account climate risks. a central government support and encouragement for cities to transform themselves into being cleaner and more liveable can be bringing more rewards. safe locations and transport planning, improve resilience. and finally, we hoped they will lay out clear policy frame works

for our forestry and gricultural. if countries can offer contributions, the signal to economic factors will be strong. but for these efforts to bring zero-net emissions we will have to find financing. it is the critical component of a paris agreement. this compelling evidence suggesting that a country use their regulatory capacity to get prices right and use the instruments available to them, they will experience greater investment flows. morocco adapted aggressive targets, lowered fossil fuel subsidies and attractive legal framework sm the country is becoming know as a solar power innovation hub.

grew from $297 million in 2012. other emerging markets such as south africa are following with similar results. a strong demand from investors from green-climate-friendly investments where investors have responded to the growing market. $35 billion in green bonds has been should so far this year and robust, liquid, green credit market is taking shape. it will be vulnerable. for these countries, public development funds and climate finance will play a critical role. in the future, these funds will have to be catalytic to serve the many needs that exist. development finance has to mainstream adapttation to ensure effectiveness.

there is no development outside the context of climate change. investing on the slopes will ensure investments in agricultural productivity as farmers are quick to adapt to more intense rainfall. and investments in educational attainment will be protected as school infrastructure is made more resilient to storms. in ting in man groves vietnam may boost earnings. each of these projects is a development project. each would count as a climate investment. this is where long-term development finance and climate finance comes together. we have taken major steps this year to introduce disastrous screening. it is the fund for the poorest

countries. we have developed adapttation plans in 25 countries. if they are found to be helpful, we'll expand the initiative. it is our hope that such countries can use this planning to develop their pipelines to the green climate fund. we know that climate finance will flow through many channels. we created the climate investment funds to pioneer investments in projects for climate change and learned lessons on how to optimize from grid-connected wind power in mexico to the first at scale concentrated solar power plants mexico, to entrepreneurs in thailand. the projects and programs show how public funds can be leveraged and used by countries and the public sector. it is $8.3 billion to generate another $57 billion in funding

for country-led investments. just last week, the contributors and other board members decided to extend the operations for two years and to ensure we can keep meeting countries' needs. we welcome the fund and the initial pledge of $9.9 billion it received. its impact will be greatest if it uses this capital to get new investment in emission reduction. we look forward to leveraging g.c.f. funds. a strong paris agreement will send immediate signals even though its component will come into force 2020. the other components must address the critical pressing needs to increase substantially our investments in resilience now.

the economics are compelling. for every dollar invested, we can save $4 in relief. for every dollar in early warning, we can save up to $30. the cost of inaction are rising. economic losses from natural hazards from risen from $50 billion to $200 billion in the last decade. along with economic losses, nsured losses have increased significantly. insured losses from weather-related events are rising. the gap between overall losses and insured losses has been widening. fully 75% of catastrophe-related losses worldwide are still uninsured. we will use our track record to look for ways to raise a one-time injection of funds and

strengthen insurance coverage and not wait until the next decade. just as we can't wait, we should also not wait to act on other fronts. in recent years, we witnessed a new phone men none. frustrated by the pace of negotiation and the difficulty of finding consensus among 193 members of the u.n., coalition of stakeholders have pressed forward. on issue after issue, government and civil society organizations have found they can override the difficulties. these coalitions have paved the way for wider agreements and icked up the pace of data, evidence-building and action. this is what led nations and stakeholders to move forward to reduce the effort. it has driven the effort to

drive out pollutants. and the development in africa of climate-smart agriculture that keeps emissions low and feeds the world's growing population. the paris agreement will recognize the importance of these coalitions in drifling action forward. partnership in these coalitions has been fundamental in our exploration of new ways to support clients. since i joined the world bank group 2 1/2 years ago, in addition to evaluating all to cts, we have begun measure the greenhouse gas emissions in key sectors and set an internal price on carbon as a guide. we are discussing the discount rate we used to determine how we measure economic benefits in the long-term and begun work.

we tallied our finance with other development banks and we have as a group of banks developed a common way to measure mitigation achieved in our financing. we are about to agree on a common measurement for adapttation. we hope in the near future all of the development banks and the bilateral financial institutions gather in the finance club and will align themselves among common accounting. they make up a robust tool kit to understand the carbon footprint and give us important management information for project choice and design. it will help the international community know that mitigation and adapttation benefits comes p channeling benefits. this will increasingly place a climate lens on our work in

support of our clients and can be a way to support countries in implementing their defined contributions to climate change. at the world bank group we need to challenge ourselves and guided by a believe that our clients must succeed at reaching zero-net emissions. this will be a direction in supporting energy access for all and scaled-up support. it will require continued support for clean transport and the development of the green building market. t means shifting our agricultural portfolio. and further financial innovation to get investments for low emissions investment. the year between lima and paris, i intend to challenge to

become long-term partners of choice in this world. i offer a spring and annual meeting to increase our ambition with finance ministers. we will support leadership of the g-7 and g-20 to ensure a paris agreement that will send the strongest signal possible. as head of the world bank group, i will drive our institution and capabilities to support the development transition that we must support together to the goal of preserving our planet for all future generations. [applause]

>> and yet there was not such a clear enough plan, i thought. so i think we have made a lot of progress. there is a lot of plans. for example, for me, the fact that we are so engaged in climate change and this is new

and different and more actors coming on board. i was extremely encouraged on carbon pricing that we brought together for the u.n. general assembly and the agreement between u.s. and china is an extremely important milestone. i'm much more optimistic than i was even a year ago. this requires so many changes and this is why, today, i wanted to bring home the point that economic management can have a huge role, because if we get this right and align the incentives, the market system will push us towards the targets we need to hit in ways that any amount of conscience or personal conservation just won't get us there. >> seeing market signals and the price of oil has fallen 40%. is this a plus or minus on the

climate front? >> we are trying to understand it. we are trying to understand the impact of the lower priced oil. we work with net exporting countries and net importing countries. the jury is still out. but for me, whatever happens doesn't take away from the very real data that we're getting out. i was reading an article and some of the new data that how quickly the glaciers are melting is very concerning. if you want to dispel any doubt you might have, go to the phillipines and talk to the people there. i think whatever happens with the price of oil, we have to just keep laser focused on what we need to do. if we can establish and move the fossil fuel subsidies and do other things that is part of

your plan, climate smart agriculture and better funding for renewable energy, if we can just keep our eye on those things, the fuel subsidies are difficult but doable. the carbon pricing is going to be controversial. renewable energy and efficiency, these things are no-brainers. we should do this no matter what is happening. we'll keep pushing while at the same time watching carefully the impact these prices are going to have. >> i agree, there is a reason to be encouraged, but sometimes living here in washington, d.c., i find the politics on climate change pretty discouraging. how does the discussion in the u.s. line up with other parts of the world and are you encouraged

or discouraged? >> i think there are enough very strong advocates for taking action on climate change. and i think when they got together and made this statement, that had enormous impact. i was at the g-20 meeting and we had a discussion on issues related to climate change. i think the fact they are leading makes it very important. and i have to tell you the discussions are different in every single country in the world. even when i started in july of 2012, the discussion in china for example has shifted dramatically. so i think things can change pretty quickly over time and i hope they do here as well. >> same here. let's talk about finances. the numbers are staggering sometimes.

the estimates for needed funds for adaptation are so big. catalog the funding? you talked about $10 billion leveraging up to 50. how does that work. how does those initiatives play out in the real world? >> we are looking at -- when i came to the world bank group, one of the first questions was, well, you guys are relatively small players. we are $65 billion but giving the infrastructure needs in the world that are not being financed is probably a trillion dollars. we are very small. we began thinking and always been in trying to do this to see how to leverage funding. something we are calling the global infrastructure facility.

we realize that the world bank has a lot of skills, a lot of experience that others don't have. for example, can we build, for example -- infrastructure that increases renewable energy, for example, in developing countries? we don't have enough money to do it. but if we were able to structure a deal that a pension fund might think of as too risky, but if we do the work and build in safeguards, can we with with a small investment crowd in other investors to get the infrastructure we need. out of the g-20 leaders' meeting we got investment. and that is one example of how we are going to try to use project preparation is a huge example. new development banks that are opening up, but one of the

things they are going to face is they don't have people with the collective decades and decades of experience inputting these projects together. we find that is the key. putting the projects together is one of the most difficult parts. one of the things that the secretary general has asked us to do and by us, i mean myself, christine mccarthy and the other multi lateral development banks, he asked us to put a investment. so the goals won't be financed in the way that the millennium development geels were. they were declared and i thought it was a brilliant move. he said we need to focus.

and first financing conference happened two years later. we are working to put together a plan to fund the sustainable goals. but this is not going to be a case where we just think about how to divide development ssistance. so many things on the table that we have to be much more creative and private sector financing is going to be a huge part of it going forward. we are in the middle of doing it now. to give you an example, in the poorest countries, support for health care should be in the form of a grant but should it be fully in the form of a grant? getting their tax systems in place. we are going to look at these different things together so the

financing strategy will give us a shot at achieving all these things. and that will require us to be as innovative. >> that's exciting. let's hear from the audience. we have microphones and we are on the record and tell us who you are and who you are affiliated with. >> i'm with the naval post-graduate school, this is very kiting to hear what's going on. what's your public relations or communication plan to get everyone excited as you do and i assume as everyone now feels so we are behind you and i take this all the way down to children's books. children tell their parents not to smoke. >> one of the things that we

realize in the social sector is we have not been nearly as good in the getting our messages across. there are great examples. i used to be a professor at the harvard school of public health. there was an effort to get designated drivers into sitcoms that led to that becoming part of the discourse. and jay winston and a friend of mine, getting smoking out of television and sending messages and there are a history of messages thatville failed miss rably. but what the advertising industry keep throwing things up and if it sticks, keep going with it. we don't have that same mentality. we have to work on many fronts at the same time to make thinking about climate change and make thinking about

conservation in the way that mark's organization has focused. these things have to become cool. they are not quite yet. they are sort of crunchy counterculture, if you will. it has to be right at the core the way we breathe and the way we live. the big boost is to get the market signals right so they are moving in the same direction. i'm extremely impressed with the private sector's embrace of these issues. wal-mart needs food in order to continue to sell its products. coca-cola needs water in order to continue selling its products. the way private sector companies have come on board has been encouraging. what we haven't gotten yet is their great, great skills about sending messages out about diet coke or whatever else they do.

so i think this has to be at the top of our agenda. we have to be ready for when the next disaster hits. i think what happens, after hurricane sandy, everyone turned and looked at the environmental community and said, ok, we get it and what's the plan? actually, we didn't have a plan. we didn't say here's the plan, one, two, three, four, five. i mean, what we're talking about s not a less prosperous way of life. i think full of promise and joy as one that would be fully carbonized. >> will davis with the united nations development program. happy birthday, president kim. and second, perhaps equally as important, certainly in the process, you are hearing a lot

of countries bringing different perspectives to the table, cbdr, common but differentiated responsibility. re countries reaching some common ground? >> i think that language is still there and has to be there. and i outlined it in my speech as well. you know, i have talked about situations of energy apartheid. i'm just back from liberia and sierra leone, our failure to provide sufficient energy is part of the problem. we did not have functioning health care systems. we did not access to grids or even micro or mini grids. they did not have that. so getting information from the regions where ebola broke out.

look at ebola as an example of what it means when we don't take seriously our development responsibilities. life fighting hiv-aids and i never seen anything as bad as the ebola outbreak. and it's the same problem. we have to get to zero cases for ebola in every single country while talking about zero-net emissions. tackling these development challenges is not just about doing the right thing as nice people. for ebola, not having a structure in place that would have allowed us to immediately to this or any other outbreak, now represents a real downside risk not just to the local community if we can't get to zero. climate change is another area

where it represents a real downside risk to the global economy that is not understood. we are saying, look, we talk ar ot about looking at a bank's assets. we are doing these studies of the european banking system, because those we know are real downside risks, but so is ebola and so is climate change. this is what we are trying to do right now is to make sure that poor countries have energy and we need to make sure that they do because it's connected to things like ebola but at the same time we can push all developing countries and this is what i'm hearing from african leaders. they don't want to be on the side of the question just saying no. no. no. it's not our responsibility. i hear also very different attitudes and leadership from the u.s. and china has had a big

impact. they know that even though we respect their need for energy, if we start saying you have to wait for energy because of climate change, then i think we will have real problems. let's make it as renewable as possible and make sure you can develop just like all the other countries have and talk about your contribution to the battle against climate change, that's a conversation that started and conversation that has to grow in intensity between now and paris. >> thank you, president kim, for your remarks. -- you had ead of the koch brothers and u.s. congressional climate skeptic,

what would you say to those people to invoke their self-interest and the commitment you have shown to climate change? >> i try to this particular issue to say the same thing to everybody. and what i start with is that you have got to look at the science and the science is pretty astounding and the science is one that you really have to embrace it. and then after the science, i would invite them to travel with me to places that have been impacted by what we know is the number and intensity of extreme weather events is going up. i would invite to visit where i visited a while ago. i put it in the same way that david cameron has put it. what he said was, look, the science is pretty convincing to me but even if you don't think

this is real and you think that the chances of the terrible events that we predict are not real, even if you think there's only a 10% chance that this is real, wouldn't you buy insurance against it? isn't that what we do with insurance policies? even if we don't know for sure it's going to happen, isn't it the smart thing to protect ourselves in case it does? that's how he put it. i'm clear of where we want to go, because the science is compelling. i know there are people that don't share that view. i would make those arguments and hen see where it goes. >> georgetown law school. president kim, the safeguard policies are the settlement, environment and culture and other things have been redone.

300 n.g.o.'s walked out and stinging critique on the blog by brookings institution. how do you see this new velopment on potentially communities. >> that's a great question and let me make clear the safeguards are not yet done. we have just put out a draft and we are in the middle intensive negotiations and i have extended the consultation process into march. so we take this very, very seriously. and let me just say that we have a role, the management of the world bank group has a role of putting the information together, but the final decision as to what these look like are part of the negotiation that what happens with our board and our board is 188-member

countries of the world bank group. i made a commitment not to dilute the safeguards. let me give you an example of how complex this is. communities from latin america are absolutely convinced that even stronger language on in digenous communities are important. when we begin to ask questions of people, we have problems like the ones we had in rwanda. it is extremely complicated and difficult. i don't know we are going to resolve that issue and bring extremely strong opinions that come from different parts of the world with different frames together. but that's the job, not just of me but of the board. so this is why multilateralism is so extremely difficult.

you have powerful forces on our board that are arguing about these things all the time. i will do my best to come to an agreement that projects -- that protects people, the environment. we will do everything to get there. because we have 188-member countries and group of governors, we have to do it within the context and i hope others will be continued to be engaged in the discussion of this process as we go forward. like to ask particularly in the sustainment of development standards why the bank has not included in the draft documents that were discussed recently, mandatory

gender standards? i think without the women of the world, the world is not going to move forward and the bank has been such a sustainer of women's advancement. why is that not included in the draft? >> which draft? >> the sustainable, environmental and social framework? >> i don't know the answer to the question other than to say that we have been extremely committed to gender equality. we have a new area that spans the entire organization. we have been trying to lead as much as possible. i don't know the answer to that question. rachel, do you know the answer to that question? work here for jim.

we are in the consultation, this is all part of the consultation. i think the question in the safeguards, there is a lot of discussion around this, have you put a gender lens on all of the safeguards, so that would start in the way in which you work with women and social impact assessment. and for my own professional experience, you walk into a forest community and you ask men and ask women, you may actually get two different answers as you would do in the village i come from. o we're aware of that. and how do you deal with the specific issues related to gender and some of the other issues in resettlements, et

cetera. do you put a gender lens across everything or stand-alone policy on he gender. the stand-alone policy has to be upstream. it is a process to make sure you are doing no harm. they have to be accompanied by strategic strategies by the game. and jim has to take a new gender strategy to the board. but let's talk after the meeting. >> if you are talking about safeguards and this is an ongoing argument and there are many -- you can imagine the number of stand-alone safeguards that are being discussed. and the board is where do you get the greatest impact or some

way of ensuring that at the end of the day we remain accountable? this is an ongoing discussion and won't be resolved -- we'll present a final version to the board in the summer of 2015 and the final approval will probably be in the year. >> let's try to revert back to today's topic of climate change and financial matters. >> could you comment -- the special problem of india with its great development needs and use of coal. >> well, i have had now had quite a few meetings with the prime minister and the prime minister has told me that he has worked a lot in terms of increasing solar energy.

great advocate of solar energy. he has an enormous problem in the sense that, he has to find ways to provide energy for 400 million people in india and have a positive impact. in my discussions with him, he has been clear he is very open to having these discussions. the first thing they will say, we need a chance to industrialize and create jobs, we need energy. so i'm hopeful in the sense that the leadership of china and the u.s., i think, was unexpected. and even at the g-20 meeting, every single one of the leaders knew there was a reckoning coming. they would have to state what they are going to do. we are going to do everything we can to help india down a cleaner path. if we could build more rapid

transit systems in india and do more bus routes, that would have huge impact and have gone to natural gas. so there are a lot of things we can do. what the prime minister is looking for and this is our responsibility to him, he said to me, if you can find cleaner ways of accomplishing what i have to accomplish and that is creating jobs for these young people, all these other people that are exiting schools and looking for work, if you can find that, i will choose it. i remain hopeful, but i think the overall discussion is a very complicated one. 400 million living on less than $1.25 a day. that is also his responsibility. >> time for one or two more questions on the topic of climate change. >> institute of peace.

let me offer a dissenting critique on your presentation. you have one of the few positions in the world that gives you the bully pulpit. and what i'm finding is whereas you are talking about 2100 objectives, unless we do something in the next 20 years, there is no prospect of meeting those objectives. politicians think they can postponethe problem. what are you saying that would cause a mainstream politician to develop the political will to take very hard choices within the next 10, 15 years, not 50 years? and i don't see it. what i hear is a summation of things countries can do, should do. we have these people at the bank that can help you and understand these things, but there's the urgency that the consequences are dire within the next 20

years, not in the time years that 2100 would suggest. you don't have to agree with me. it world of $70 oil which isn't complicated. it means it postpones people's ncentives to get off of oil. a rush to the resource. >> my mother would thank you for calling me wonky. i have been in a political position now for so long. first of all, i don't think we know what's going to happen to oil prices. there are equal numbers of people that some say it will go, others say down to $40 a barrel. if you read our documents, we have put out a lot of documents at an unprecedented level.

they are very specific about what's going to happen in asia, latin america. we have been very specific about the short-term impact. and our approach to the problem has been that we are not going to limit our activity just to giving the doomsday scenario because in my have you getting a politician to change his or her mind is an extremely important task. but in the meantime there are specific tasks. how do we increase financing for renewable energy. this is something we can work on. climate smart agriculture is a no-brainer. it increases productivity and makes the crops more resilient and feeds important people and good for the environment. and it is not being done at the level where it should be done. that's very clear. so i hope you guys are successful along with us reading

our documents convincing the politicians to change their minds. , t about building cleaner more livable cities? they are not. 70% of the emissions happens in cities, if you can make them more cleaner and livable with all the other things that have been proven to lower the carbon footprint in cities, it's something we should do right now and this has changed about the world bank group that we are not strad willing the fence and saying this is a real problem and just engaging in political arguments, the thing i worried about is everyone would put everything on a binding political agreement. that might not happen. i hope it does. by that meeting we will have worked out how we are going to finance activities for the years

forward for the poorest country and work out a plan for cleaner and livable cities that is much morrow bus and have an impact on carbon emissions. funding for renewable energy. in other words, we cannot wait for the politicians to change their mind. that's our approach and i urge you to read our documents. they are pretty frightening. >> let's close on that strong answer. president kim, thank you for your great remarks. thanks for your leadership. as this challenge is a practical one. your leadership is needed and we appreciate it and thank you very much. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org >> next on c-span, former secretary of state hill ar clinton is interviewed about the situation in the middle east. then from 2012, economist jonathan gruber discusses his work on the health care law. later a discussion on the ukraine-russia conflict. on the next "washington journal," david price looks at federal government funding set to expire this thursday, december 11. georgia representative doug collins discusses transparency in the health care law and the

possible release of alleged use of torture by the c.i.a. "washington journal's" live on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. on tuesday, jonathan gruber testifies about his work on the federal health care law. the house oversight committee is examining his comments regarding how the law was written in order to pass. he will be joined by administrator of the centers for medicare and medicaid services, starts at 9:30 on c-span 3 and join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> here are a few of the comments that we have received from our viewers. >> i'm in my 80's and big fan of c-span. and i want to compliment on being able to bring together two

different ideologies like they did this morning from the cato institute and the immigration policy center. i think you need more programming that way among people who can conduct themselves with a very civil tone. and i applaud you for that. ideology can be overcome to reach a common ground. and i think there should be more programming to that effect. thank you very much for c-span. >> i listen c-span pretty much on a daily regular basis and it is very informative and good look at our politicians so citizens can understand who we elect and what's being done in ongress. it's important that the citizens have a leg for them to see the

proceedings that go on. so i appreciate c-span and regardless of whether or not it's popular with mainstream culture, i just want you to know there are young people, particularly me, i'm 18, and i watch c-span on a regular basis to make sure i understand what is going on in my country. >> i just watched that program in its entirety, it's priceless system of many peoples of the world do not understand their own selves but if they watch american history, they can see themselves in america and why we're such a great and wonderful nation of all the peoples of the world. thank you. >> and continue to let us